This Bill was rendered necessary by the change made in the Electoral Act. Up to this year, the qualifying date for getting on the register of electors was 15th November. We have been having numerous elections in June of late and there has been trouble on each occasion about the register. Because of that, the Minister for Local Government decided to make September 15th the qualifying date for residence and April the month in which the register would come into force instead of June. Consequential on that, it was necessary to bring in a Juries Bill so that the qualifying date for jurors would correspond. The Bill was availed of to deal with a few other matters which required attention. One of these matters referred to opportunities for the performance of their religious duties on Sundays by members of a jury which had been locked up. Provision is made for that. Another matter which required to be dealt with was the position of a juror who received information that a near relative was seriously ill.
Juries Bill, 1945—Second Stage.
I was in such a case.
The judge has no power to release a juror in that event. We are providing for that contingency. I gave a full explanation of the Bill in the memorandum which has been circulated to Senators and I do not think it is necessary to say more about it.
I do not understand the necessity for the difference between Section 7 and Section 8. In reading those sections, we are presented with the same difficulty that we have had during the past few years, because it is necessary to refer to a large number of Acts. This is one of the worst bits of legislation by reference we have had for some time. If I read the two sections correctly, the persons who are to be liable for jury duty both for the wards of court and in the common law section of the High Court are the same. The jurors are to be drawn from the same panel. If I am right in that, why are not the jurors summoned by the same man? It might happen that the Registrar of the Wards of Court would summon a man to-day and that the Central Office would summon him to-morrow. I am not sure that I am right in saying that the jurors are to be from the same panel. If they are not, perhaps the Minister would explain on what qualifications the common law panel is made up in Dublin and the country and on what qualifications the panel for the Registrar of the Wards of Court is completed.
That difficulty occurred to me, too. As I understand, the panel is the same for both.
Yes.
I understood that the law provided that certain jurors would be summoned on certain occasions down to, say, the letter K and that jurors for the following sitting would be summoned from K to M and so on. If that is the practice, the same person should summon both sets of jurors. Otherwise, you might have a man summoned to two courts on the same day.
I do not think that there will be any difficulty, in practice, or that there will be any conflict between the functions of the officer of the High Court under Section 7 and those of the Registrar of the Wards of Court under Section 8, because the jury that will be summoned under Section 7 is the ordinary jury for the trial of civil actions in the Four Courts, while the jury, under Section 8, is to be summoned for the purpose of deciding whether a person is or is not of unsound mind. It is very rarely that that jury has been summoned. So far as my recollection serves, it would be only once in three years. In practice, there would be no conflict between the two officers.
In the explanatory memorandum issued by the Minister in connection with this Bill, the Minister states with reference to Section 7:
"This section deals with the summoning of jurors and any duties subsequent to the summoning in civil cases in the High Court. At present these duties are divided between the Master of the High Court and the under-sheriff for the County of Dublin. It is considered simpler and better to entrust these duties to the Registrar of the High Court who deals generally with jury trials under the direction of the President of the High Court."
Although the Minister, in his explanatory memorandum, states that it is considered better to entrust those duties to the Registrar of the High Court, the Bill does not so provide. The Bill simply states that the duties to which the section applies shall be performed by "such officer serving in the central office as the President of the High Court may from time to time nominate in that behalf". That might mean that the Registrar of the High Court would be appointed but the section does not say so. The summoning officer might be a person other than the Registrar of the High Court. However, that is a matter which can be rectified. No doubt, the President of the High Court will nominate the registrar. That reinforces my argument on the last Bill that the Registrar of the High Court has added duties under this Bill.
There is one other matter which is not mentioned in this Bill to which I would like to refer. Under an Emergency Powers Order it was provided that only seven jurors should be necessary to try a criminal case in the Circuit Court. The requirement that 12 jurors should be necessary in a criminal trial in the Central Criminal Court has not been affected by the Emergency Powers Order. I do not know whether the emergency which produced that Order still exists, but I think the sooner we get rid of that position the better. I believe that in the Circuit Court a number of serious crimes are tried, and the consequences are almost as great as those arising from a trial in the Central Criminal Court, so that for the purposes of justice we should revert as soon as possible to the trial of criminal cases in the Circuit Court by 12 jurors and not by seven as at present obtains.
An extraordinary case happened quite recently in the Circuit Court in Dublin. A person was charged with stealing some property of the Electricity Supply Board—I do not know whether he was an employee. There were seven jurors trying the case. In the middle of the trial the solicitor for the defendant pointed out to the judge that the foreman of the jury was an employee of the Electricity Supply Board. When the foreman's attention was called to that fact he informed the judge that another member of the jury was also an employee of the Electricity Supply Board. Two of the seven were interested parties. However, the jury were discharged and a new trial had to take place. That was a case where, through inadvertence or otherwise, these employees of the Electricity Supply Board happened to be sworn on the jury. If one juryman should get ill or something else should happen, reducing the number to six, it would be a rather serious matter. I think that now, at all events, the Minister should consider the revocation of that Order, or procuring the revocation of that Order as soon as possible.
The basis of the Order was the difficulty of transport in the country. I do not think that transport in the country will improve very much from its present position so far as juries are concerned, unless every juryman is a person who owns a private car. Certainly in the City of Dublin, where the difficulty of transport does not arise, there is no justification in my opinion for retaining in the Circuit Court a jury of seven in criminal cases.
We know that in Dublin at the present time the Circuit Court judges are employed a considerable portion of the year—two Circuit Court judges, often three—trying criminal cases. I would suggest that, as far as Dublin is concerned, where there is no difficulty of transport, the system of 12 jurors in a criminal trial should be reverted to.
The Bill contains a rather novel section, a section appropriate to this country, namely the section enabling a jury in murder cases to separate for the purpose of attending a place of religious worship. I know that in a number of cases the law as it stands produced certain difficulties, especially when the juries happened to be members of different religions. In some cases the minority went with the majority or the jury did not go at all. This is a very novel section and I think a welcome one. As far as I know there is no such provision in English law. Perhaps the necessity would not arise very much there but, at all events, it is a novel section and we welcome it. For these reasons, I support the Bill and I trust that the suggestion which I made concerning a reversion to a jury of 12 in criminal trials, at least in the Circuit Court in Dublin, will receive consideration from the Minister.
I should like to add my voice to that of Senator Ryan in regard to the abolition of the jury of seven in the Circuit Court. I realise that there are difficulties in the country, but these difficulties do not arise in Dublin. Senator Ryan says that there is no transport difficulty in Dublin. Perhaps Senator Ryan has never tried to catch a bus at the rush hour. At the same time, from the point of view of the jurymen in the city, I do not think there could be any difficulty in reverting to a jury of 12. For the same reason, in connection with Section 6, I do not think that the jury should be reduced below 11. I quite approve of the exception which is provided for there. Where a near relative, say a wife or a husband falls ill, it is desirable that the juryman concerned should be discharged.
I think the case which gave rise to this section was a criminal case in which I myself was engaged. The difficulty was one which placed the judge and counsel in a quandary but eventually the solution arrived at was that the juryman was not told of the incident until the case was over. If the effect of the section were to reduce a jury below 11, I doubt if in any case the trial should go on and I suggest that an amendment on these grounds might be adopted.
On the whole, I welcome the provision in Section 5. I am not certain, however, that very much harm was done by the old system. Some people might feel that under the old system quite a few Protestants were given a chance of saving their souls because what generally happened was that the Protestants went to a Catholic service with the other jurymen! I do not think it does any harm to Protestants to attend for once a Catholic service, but there should be no compulsion in the matter. I should like if an amendment were inserted providing that the minimum instead of being ten should be 11, because, in a criminal case, it is very important to my mind to get unanimity, and whereas you may dispense with one juryman, if you dispense with two, it may make all the difference between acquittal or conviction. I do not much like that provision in the section.
I rise for the purpose of voicing as strongly as possible my commendation of the point of view put forward by Senator Ryan and the last speaker with regard to a jury of 12. I think that in the interests of justice it would be much more satisfactory to have a jury of 12. When we speak of the inconvenience of travelling down the country, I do not think that in serious matters such as criminal trials the question of transport difficulties should enter into the matter. I do not think that anybody down the country would consider transport difficulties when it is a question of meting out justice. The general custom in the past was to get a verdict of 12 jurymen. It was felt that when a case was tried by 12 jurymen there was a clear verdict and such a verdict carried great weight.
Unless in a sudden case of illness affecting one member of the jury it would be more than desirable to have the full 12 and I will strongly urge that the number should not be reduced under 11.
There is a small point that strikes me about this problem of juries. I have come up against it frequently. It is especially a problem in our small farming counties—I refer to the question of the expenses incurred by jurymen. I do not know what the position is in law, but I have frequently seen in my own county town men who had travelled 40 miles to serve on a jury, sometimes pushing 20 miles on a bicycle to catch a bus, and getting back in the same fashion.
In those days, when you are paying expenses to county councillors, members of committees of agriculture, members of vocational committees and members of the Dáil and Seanad, I think that it is a hardship to expect jurymen to pay their own expenses. I have no doubt it is a hardship because I have seen cases of it myself. I have met men in county towns who had travelled 40 miles. You would wonder why they were in the town and when you asked them, you found that they had a real grievance.
They had come away from farms at the most difficult period of the year and it cost them £1, £2 or £3 before they got home. I suggest to the Minister that that is a problem that must be tackled. It is a different matter in Dublin, although I admit you have greater demands on the time of jurymen in the capital. But when a Dublin juryman has finished his day he can go back to his home, unlike the unfortunate country members of Dáil Eireann and Seanad Eireann who must find lodgings for themselves in the city. There are not so many jurors as a whole, but the very fact that they are few makes the hardship all the greater. When a man is summoned from his crops and his stock at a busy time of the year he undoubtedly has a grievance.
On the question raised by Senator Sweetman as to the summoning of juries by different officers, the position is that the officer who deals with lunacy cases is considered to be the best person to summon a jury dealing with a lunacy matter. I consulted with the President of the High Court on that matter, and I find that it is only rarely that it happens. The other registrar does not deal with cases of lunacy but, of course, it is from the same panel that the names are taken.
I must say that I do not agree with the President.
As regards the point raised about the juries of seven members, that was simply an emergency measure. We will go back to 12 as soon as possible, but I do not think that emergency conditions have passed so far as transport is concerned. Indeed, the Department was afraid that the whole system would break down, and that you would not get jurymen to come in. Therefore, the number has been restricted in country places, and as residents of County Dublin may be summoned to attend on juries it also applies to them. A juryman might have difficulty in getting backwards and forwards owing to bad transport conditions.
I think that everybody knows that transport is nothing like what it was pre-war and until conditions are reasonably satisfactory we ought to keep to the seven. That is the case that was made for it. People have complained that they could not get home at night and had to meet heavy expenses. They really had a grievance. I agree that there are cases heard in the Circuit Court which are very serious, but they are not as serious as those in the Central Criminal Court, and we have, therefore, continued the 12 in the Central Criminal Court. There is no suggestion that we are trying to do away with 12, although once in a while the number might be allowed by the judge to drop to ten. We follow the practice permitted by Section 54 of the Juries Act of 1927, which gives the judge certain discretion.
I think you were wrong there.
We followed the practice and there has not been much compaint about it.
And in practice the number rarely goes to ten?
Rarely. If you had not that discretion it would mean a new trial, and jurymen are complaining of these long trials. When it has worked fairly well, I think we had better leave it so.
It is for decision by the judge?
That is so.
The difficulty is that this will be quoted in future as a second precedent for ten.
The number ten is there in the 1927 Act already.
You are quoting the 1927 Act as a precedent. When the third Act comes along, this Act will be quoted as a second precedent.
When we were drawing up the Bill we looked at the present position and we followed the same procedure. About the question of jurors' expenses, I do not think that anyone has asked that juries should be paid for their services. The Department of Finance has examined that matter and they will pay reasonable subsistence allowances and transport expenses. That has been fixed up.
What does the Minister mean when he says that it is fixed up?
The Minister for Finance has agreed to pay when proper evidence is secured. Reasonable expenses which have been incurred for subsistence and transport will be met.
Next stage?
Now.
Wednesday, July 18th.
Committee Stage fixed for Wednesday, 18th July.
The Seanad adjourned at 8.20 p.m. until 3 p.m. on Wednesday, July 18th.