Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 2 Mar 1949

Vol. 36 No. 7

Jury Service Compensation—Motion.

Mr. Duffy

I move:-

That the Seanad is of opinion that persons serving on juries should be refunded the amount of out-of-pocket expenses reasonably incurred in the performance of this public service and should be compensated for loss of time; and the House requests the Government to introduce proposals for this purpose.

I do not know if the members of the House have given attention to the subject dealt with in this motion. If they have, I hope there will be little objection to it. We are trying to preserve the jury system. It has been challenged from time to time; in fact, trial by jury on occasions has been abrogated, not merely here but in other countries. Yet I am one of those who believe that we ought to preserve trial by jury, not merely in criminal cases, but in civil cases—in the case where two people quarrel as to their rights. In cases where a man is claiming compensation because of the negligent conduct of somebody using a road vehicle, it is much more satisfactory that 12 citizens who know the local conditions, who live in the community amongst the parties involved in the proceedings, should determine the issue rather than it should be left to a judge, no matter how competent he may be, to make a determination as between the parties.

It has been the function of the judge to determine questions of law: it has been, and still is, the function of the jury to determine questions of fact; and I am anxious that that system would be preserved. The best definition of the functions of the jury may be expressed in one sentence:—

"Juries are bodies of men convened by process of law to represent the public and to discharge upon oath or affirmation defined public duties."

That is taken from page 226 of the 18th volume of Halsbury's Laws of England. These are still the laws of Ireland, so far as the common law is concerned.

We in the Seanad are in the fortunate position that we can be academic about this subject, as none of us is liable to serve on a jury. That is one of the advantages you get by being elected to either House of the Oireachtas—you are exempt from jury service. I notice in recent years there has been a great rush to have peace commissioners appointed and I have a suspicion that that is not entirely dissociated from the fact that peace commissioners are exempt from jury service. We ought to deplore that attitude, that people normally entitled to give public service should try to dodge it. It means putting a greater obligation on those who are called on to give service, if an ever-growing body of the community who normally should give service can escape it by a subterfuge of any kind. Large numbers of people—civil servants, civic guards, military, professional people, peace commisioners, members of the Oireachtas—who normally might be expected to make good jurors, are exempted altogether.

On the other hand, certain people are called upon who can ill afford to do this public work at their own expense. There are areas, even in this small country, where people travel 80 miles or more from their homes to attend in town or city where the-court is sitting, to answer their names when the jury list is called. Even if these people are not called to serve they must remain in the town, as they cannot return that long distance. A man with a high-powered car may face the task of coming in in the morning and going home at night over a long distance. One cannot imagine a person with only a bus service morning and evening between Limerick and Dublin doing that journey in order to perform this public work, free of charge to the community, yet that is what is expected from a man in Berehaven if he is summoned on a jury in Cork City, as has happened.

Dublin has its own problems. The distances are not great and most people concerned in the city or county can come in every morning very conveniently, be in time for the roll call and get home at night. However, they have other grievances, if I may so refer to them. All serious crime—all murder cases, for instance—are brought to Dublin for trial, and Dublin City has to provide the jury for every trial coming to the metropolis to the High Court or the Central Criminal Court, from all parts of the Twenty-Six Counties. The result is that you have in Dublin at times as many as five juries sitting simultaneously. That is 60 people taken away from their work or their homes. In the case of a murder trial, they are locked up at night, perhaps for three, four, five or even ten days at a time.

This all gives rise to great hardship, but I want it noted that I am not making the complaint in respect of the hardship of public service. The claim I am making is that people who render this service should not be placed at a disadvantage, contrasted with their neighbours who do not render public service. Why should a farmer in West Cork be expected, without fee or reward, to spend a week or a fortnight in Cork, waiting his turn to be called on a jury or perhaps serving on a jury, when the local schoolteacher who lives next door to him at home is exempt from jury service altogether? Not merely is the farmer concerned required to go away from his work, but he is required to pay his own travelling expenses and pay his hotel or lodging expenses in the city. In the case of the farmer, it may be a great hardship or it may not. Some people will probably recall instances in which the farmer can perform this duty without much disadvantage, apart from the expense in which he is involved. But take the case of a wage-earner in Dublin, a carpenter earning £7 a week. He attends the High Court or Central Criminal Court on Monday morning to answer his name and then he is waiting around until the jury is empanelled for a particular trial. If he is not empanelled, he may go home, but he has lost certainly a half-day's pay. When going home, he is told to watch the newspaper in the morning to see whether he will be wanted the next day or not. He does not know, when going home at night, whether he will be required the next day or not.

I think these facts are known to everybody. Members of the House appreciate them as well as I do. I would like to quote certain complaints which have been addressed to me, so that the House may understand and appreciate the viewpoint of the people outside who are affected. This matter really was forced upon me, the question of moving this motion was forced upon me. I was approached by a deputation, about six months ago, and asked what could be done in either House of the Oireachtas to get exemption for wage-earners from jury service. I expressed the view that I could not support a proposition that a person would be exempt from jury service because he was a wage-earner. Then the deputation said: "Well, surely he should not be asked to lose a day or a week's wage, plus the cost of travel and the cost of maintenance, if away from home?" I sympathised with that and asked that some investigation be made, to let me see how far this complaint had a basis in fact. I have received a considerable number of letters in connection with it. I have made extracts and would like to quote from one or two of them. Here is a complaint contained in a letter written to me by a secretary of a trade union branch in Dublin:—

"One of our members, a pay clerk, was summoned for jury service a few times and on each occasion his pay was docked for the time he was absent in court. In the case of a man with small pay this is a great hardship."

Another kind of case is dealt with in another letter which indicates that a man, married, with six children, had to travel to England on family business at night. He was detained there longer than he expected and did not get back in time to answer his name when the panel was called. For this he was fined £3. He attended later in the day and also next morning, when he was empanelled for a case which took four days. He lost his entire week's wages and, into the bargain, had to pay a fine of £3. He was told if he did not pay his effects would be seized.

General MacEoin

Was there no remission of that fine?

Mr. Duffy

I did not inquire. That was the letter I got. But it does say that he lost a week's wages and had to pay a fine of £3. I had the distinction of being fined £3 for failing to answer my name on an occasion on which I was not lawfully entitled to be a member of the jury. I made representations to the proper authorities and the fine was immediately remitted. It is very easy for a judge to pronounce a fine of £3 in court.

I have another example of a fine, which is rather interesting. The writer says:—

"My experience is that you are expected to be in court day after day whether or not you are on a jury. It is too risky to leave the place even when you have nothing to do except to hang about all day. The last time I was summoned there was a bricklayer beside me who answered his name at the first call-over, but later on decided to escape the jury when his name was called for a murder trial. He did not answer his name and was fined £10. This man was prepared, evidently, to pay a fine of £10 rather than risk serving on a murder trial. I do not know whether it was because he was not anxious to serve on a murder trial or because he wanted to avoid serving on a trial that was bound to take several days. I can well believe that this man would be earning £8 or £9 a week and, if he were called and had to serve in the case, it was very likely he would have lost a week's pay and, on balance, he came to the conclusion that he preferred to pay a fine of £10 rather than answer his name when called for jury service in a particular instance."

A Dublin writer says:—

"Now about the man called for, say, October who has to attend daily until close on Christmas. How much is he going to lose? Who is going to feed his family, especially at a time like this when most men are trying to get a few shillings together to cover the extra cost and expense of Christmas?"

A suggestion has been made that if the obligation was placed on somebody— particularly on the State—to pay the expenses of jurors there would be very much more care taken in the manner in which juries are summoned and in the manner in which they are empanelled. For instance, a writer says:—

"There is a most dictatorial system in the courts where jurymen are concerned. The summons tells you where to go the first day. From that on you must find this out for yourself. The court clerk is condescending enough to tell you the first day that you must get a morning paper next morning and every other morning to see for yourself at what court you must attend. If they had to pay expenses they might learn to plan in advance."

I do not want to over-emphasise this point. It must be clear to the House that in the circumstances described, jury service, although obviously a public duty that none of us should shirk, can become very onerous and can, in fact, become very unfair where it involves the loss of time day after day for men who have to live by their daily wages. I should, perhaps, draw attention to the fact that this question has arisen and has been dealt with more or less satisfactorily elsewhere. It has been dealt with in Great Britain, for instance, and I imagine that it is because of the publicity given to the provisions made for the payment of jurors in England that the matter was forced upon my attention so consistently for some months by interested people in this country. I do not know whether the British Parliament has yet passed the Bill or not, but I have here a leading article which appeared in the Irish Independent on the 1st January of this year. The leading article is, perhaps, characteristic, and I might be permitted to quote a few sentences from it:—

"If the Juries Bill now before the British Parliament becomes law, jurors in both criminal and civil cases will be given compensation up to a maximum of ten shillings for a four-hour day and a pound for more than four hours. They will also be given travelling and subsistence allowances. The Bill does not extend to coroners' juries...

The rate of remuneration is not extravagant. No doubt the jurors will suppress the temptation"

—this is where the originality creeps in—

"to provide themselves with a refresher by prolonging their deliberations for the necessary four hours and five minutes. In any event it is only a beginning."

Then says the editor of the Independent:—

"By appropriate agitation the Jurors Trade Union—an inevitable sequel to the Bill—will raise the standard of pay in good time. We may even be prepared for occasional strikes, official or unofficial, when justice will be brought to a standstill while my lord or his tipstaff carries on without prejudice parleys with the picket, and the prisoner at the bar hopes for the best or protests against the indignity of being tried by blackleg jurors."

However the Independent became repentant after this indulgence in frivolity and concluded—this is what I want the Minister to take notice of because it is a prophecy and you cannot ignore prophets, depending on how you spell the word.

"Payment of jurors was bound to come. The days when men did public service without reward have passed into history."

It is unfortunately true that the days when men did public service without reward have passed into history, but jurors have been picked for special treatment and are not free agents. They did not just come into this service as you would join, for instance, a voluntary fire brigade. They are compelled by court summons to attend in court, to answer their names and do their best between the parties before the court. I do not think it is a good thing for justice that you should have jurors sitting in judgment in important issues who are dissatisfied and have a grievance themselves, who feel that they are there under duress and that they are being done an injustice by being there.

The claim I am making is not extravagant. I am proposing merely that the citizen who is called upon to perform this public duty should be refunded all the out of pocket expenses reasonably incurred in the performance of that service and that he should be compensated for his loss of time. No doubt difficulties will arise in determining the loss of time. It is easy enough in the case of a wage earner. His loss is his day's pay. There may be a question sometimes as to whether the loss is of a whole day's pay or a half day's pay and cases where it might be contended that if he wanted to get back in time he could work for a half day. It is not so easy to determine the loss incurred by a businessman or a farmer.

Mr. Hearne

Or a writer. That would be more difficult still.

Mr. Duffy

They would manage to get along some way at night.

Mr. O'Farrell

I thought they were exempt.

Mr. Duffy

I am talking about writers, not journalists. The two broad classes where it might be most difficult to determine the loss are farmers and businessmen. The motion is left open and I have no doubt that if there is goodwill and if the Government makes up its mind that the proposal is a reasonable one they will bring forward proposals which will reasonably commend themselves to everybody.

Travelling expenses are quite simple. In a place like Dublin it would be entirely unnecessary to think of travelling expenses because they would be only a few pence at best. Subsistence is also a matter that could be dealt with. I am leaving the question open as I am trying to establish the principle that there should be recompense. I am prepared to listen to any reasonable proposal to determine what that recompense should be and the form which it should take.

One question remains to be considered: who is going to pay the sums which, it is determined, should be refunded to men who have incurred expense in connection with jury service? I have an open mind in the matter so far as civil cases are concerned. In a civil case in an action for damages for slander or libel, or in a running-down case, if one citizen takes an action against another he brings expert witnesses to the witness box to testify his loss or the injury inflicted upon him, and the courts have little difficulty in making up their minds as to the services rendered by professional witnesses. A doctor gives evidence on behalf of a person claiming damages against a motorist by whom he is alleged to have been injured, and the courts have no difficulty in making up their minds as to whether the doctor is entitled to three guineas or five guineas for his services to the court. It is similar with an engineer or other people who come to give evidence of an expert character. Is there any reason why, in assessing damages, the court should not have the right to award against the unsuccessful litigant in a civil case the amount payable under this scheme in respect of jury services? If, on top of a decree, £20, £50 or £100 is added in respect of lawyers' expenses, counsels' fees and witnesses' expenses, why not also include expenses payable under this proposal to jurors who have listened to and tried the case? In criminal cases it is somewhat different. Usually in criminal cases the State is the prosecutor and some citizen who has got into trouble is the defendant.

He may be tried for his life or he may be tried on a serious charge. In most of these cases the person who is being tried will be a person of very little substance, not in all cases I agree, but in most cases. I think that whatever is decided upon in relation to the payment of jurors would have to be a State charge. I cannot see any escape from that, but I do think, as one correspondent stated in a letter from which I read an extract, that if the State is made liable for the payment of expenses of jurors they will take very good care that the expenses are reduced to a minimum. As it is, there is no inducement for the State, State solicitors, Garda officers or anybody else, to minimise the inconvenience to jurors because they are not paying for it. The juror himself has to foot the whole bill.

I think I have submitted what seems to me a reasonable case and I would urge strongly that this House should pass this motion so that the Government would be given an opportunity of examining the whole question and, as I confidently hope, arriving at a decision which will be calculated to remove the grievances and hardships under which our citizens suffer when they make themselves liable for jury service.

Mr. O'Connell

I formally second the motion.

Professor O'Brien

I would like to support this motion strongly. I think the jury system is an essential safeguard of the liberty of the citizens in this country. I think any tendency to weaken the jury system will tend to undermine our whole judicial system.

I feel that the jury system is an extremely important weapon for the ordinary private man to use against the abuse of State privilege in the modern world, but I do not see why people who render this invaluable service should be asked to be out of pocket. I do not think the proposal concerns the payment of jurors, but simply that the juror should not be actively out of pocket by doing this very essential public service. When you come to think of it, the jury service is really a form of conscription. It is rather like the press gangs of the old days where people went about and forced other people into the Navy without their consent. As has been said, some people escape having to render this service while others are caught into the net. The system of selection is somewhat irrational. If you look through the list, you will see that all sorts of professions are exempted for no particular or obvious reason. That puts a greater strain on the people who are not exempt, although some of those who are not exempt are people such as waiters and small business people of that kind who can least afford to serve. Even the conscript to-day in the modern army, although he does not get so much as the professional soldier, at least gets his keep. He is not asked to pay for himself. Even the conscript in the most totalitarian army in the world to-day is kept during the period of his conscription. He receives his travelling expenses when he is moved from place to place and he receives a certain modicum of sustenance and entertainment while he is doing his involuntary service.

Jury service can be very inconvenient indeed. It can be very onerous especially if the case goes on for several days when the juries are frequently locked up. In the old days the jurors were locked up for the night while, paradoxically enough, the prisoner went out on bail and if the jurors failed through no fault of their own in the slightest performance of their duty they were heavily fined. It is really all part of a larger question on which I shall not dwell for longer than a minute—a thing which we shall have to face in this country sooner or later. I refer to the fact that the time has come when we cannot expect people to be unremunerated or unpaid for public service. In the old days, 100 years ago, there was a very unequal type of society. It was a society resting on the existence of a privileged class in this country and in England. They performed a great many public services free of charge. Members of Parliament were not even paid their travelling expenses and the administration of justice was, generally speaking, carried out by unpaid justices of the peace. All that is now past. Members of Parliament in this and in other countries are remunerated. The old unpaid justice of the peace in this country has been replaced by the district justice. Even the county councillors are now, I believe, soon going to receive travelling expenses and so forth in connection with the carrying out of their duties.

Mr. Duffy

They are paid now.

Professor O'Brien

We shall have to move with the times. All this old system of the privileged class rests on the basis that certain people in society had a privileged position in return for which, to a large extent, they governed the country without receiving any specific remuneration. As I say, that is past and swept away. There is no privileged class to-day. In fact, nobody in modern society can afford to give his time for nothing and certainly nobody can afford to lose several days' work, and incur expenses in doing so. That, to my mind, seems to be the case. It is an anachronism that one particular type of public service should be unpaid. In saying so, I am not advocating the payment of juries although I understand that special juries in Dublin have always been paid in the past, and common juries in civil cases also. That juries should be compensated for their out-of-pocket expenses and their loss of time seems to me to be a very reasonable proposition. The danger is that if this is not done, if jury service continues to be as irksome and as onerous as it is at the present time, it may become more and more difficult to get people to act. Just as the administration of justice on the local bench has passed out of the hands of the unpaid justice into the hands of a paid justice, and so forth, it might sooner or later come to the point when more and more cases would be decided by judges without juries.

I myself am a member of the legal profession, although I have not practised for a great many years. I know the profession well and I have a great respect for it as a profession. In fact, I may say that nobody could hold the Irish Bench in higher esteem and honour than I do. Many of the members of the profession are my friends and I look up to them as people of the highest honour. I still say, however, that there is a certain type of case where the ordinary man does gain something by the protection of the jury. It has been shown over and over again that, in certain types of cases, an ordinary jury of 12 fellow-citizens, drawn by lot, is an invaluable institution to save the ordinary man from the possibility of injustice. I am afraid that in this modern age when people have so many claims on their money, when people have to contend with rising prices and when people have not got the same leisure as they had, we may not be able to get that unpaid service in future.

In supporting Senator Duffy's motion I am not doing so in the interests of juries themselves but in the interests of the institution of the jury. I think that that institution is a very valuable institution in this country and that the people who perform that essential public service should not be out of pocket thereby. That, I think, is the basis of the case.

Mr. Hawkins

I think I should be expressing the views of the majority of the Senators when I say that this motion by Senator Duffy has the wholehearted support of the members of this House. It is only fair that those who serve a very useful purpose in the discharge of justice should not be out of pocket. This applies more in rural areas than, perhaps, in the City of Dublin. We have at the present time a Circuit Court system. The court sits in Galway. Men from various parts of the country are often called on to act as jurymen at their own expense and at great inconvenience. The least we can do is to ensure that they should receive sympathetic consideration from the Government with a view to recouping them their out-of-pocket expenses. Senator Duffy asked whether the State should bear the cost in all cases. I certainly would recommend that payment of out-of-pocket expenses should be made.

Mr. S. O'Farrell

I give somewhat lukewarm support to this motion, not because I am against the principle, but because I do not like the way it is drafted, or some of the arguments used in its favour. Like Senator O'Brien, I have great respect for the jury system. I would not like to see anything happening which would in any way minimise a system that is so beneficial for the country and so essential to a democratic form of government. I have been long a believer in the principle of equal pay for equal work. Therefore, I think a system of payment for jury service would be better than Senator Duffy's proposal. He would have out-of-pocket expenses reasonably incurred refunded and would compensate each person for loss of time. That would involve considerable calculation and investigation.

There might be half a dozen different types of persons on a jury. One man might reasonably expect to stay at the Gresham or the Shelbourne Hotel, while another man might be in the habit of going to a cheaper place. One man might say that he had a big business, and that a loss of a day on a jury meant £100 to him, while another man might be unemployed, and all he would lose would be the dole, yet each would be equally useful as jurors. It might possibly happen that the unemployed might be the better juryman. Therefore, let there be equal pay for equal work for all jurymen, and no favouritism.

I agree with Senator Duffy's remarks regarding civil actions, that the payment of juries should be included as, under the present system, the loser pays. He might as well pay for the jury as for the barristers. If we had the system advocated in the motion, merely to pay out-of-pocket expenses, there would be a tendency to pick the lowly paid or the unemployed. With a Government carefully watching every penny of expenditure, there might be an objection to every juror likely to cost more than £1 a day. In that way, it might be found that the wealthy might escape jury service altogether, and it would become practically, only work for the unemployed.

Mr. O'Dwyer

I will support this motion. Having served on juries I feel that great hardship is imposed on people in rural districts who are called for such service. They may have to travel 20 or 30 miles at their own expense. There is no reason in calling people to serve on criminal cases without paying their expenses. I agree that there should be a flat rate.

Mr. Fitzsimons

I support the motion as I consider that it is time to face up to this problem. I am more concerned with the position of people living in country districts who are called to serve on juries. Very often they have to travel long distances and are inconvenienced as far as hotel accommodation is concerned. They may have to go to adjoining towns for such accommodation if they cannot get to their homes. I believe that it will be necessary to have a commission to examine the whole question before the Government could take action.

There is another point to which I wish to call attention, even though it may not be appropriate to this motion. Very often when jurors are called the person first called by the registrar is generally made foreman. I think that system is wrong, as the man first called may not be the proper person for the position. There should be some change in the code covering the selection of foreman. That matter might be considered as well as the payment of jurors. I can assure the House that the proposal will meet with approval.

Mr. D. Burke

I am opposed to this motion. In my opinion there has been too much pampering about it. I am thinking of the position of a poor man who is knocked down by a motor car and who wants to bring an action. He might find, in order to pay the jury, that he would be asked to lodge £150 in court to provide for such payment in case he lost his case. That man might find it difficult to raise the necessary cash, and a man, perhaps, with an income of £10,000 a year would then not have to go to court to defend himself.

In criminal cases it has been suggested that the State would pay the cost. That would mean that the cost of a jury would become so high that some Minister for Finance would favour the abolition of jurors, and there would be an approach towards a system that is now being pursued in some parts of Europe. I think the idea of public service is great and that we have gone away too far from that ideal. I consider it to be a pity that mayors of towns are not allowed to act as justices as in the past. The tendency now is to depart from such codes. One of the things that I stand for is that people should be tried by their peers. Now we have impersonal peers. I do not think such system a good one. Trial by 12 Irishmen is good justice and is enshrined in our Constitution.

Mr. McGuire

I think we all agree that anything that would continue the jury system is desirable. There is general agreement on that. I was rather taken by Senator Duffy's references to the exemptions in the jury system and I think we all feel, especially in Dublin, that the weight of jury service falls on too small a number of people. Over a period of perhaps ten years, I have been called three or four times, and when I went to Green Street or the Four Courts, I noticed a lot of familiar faces, faces of people who had been there the previous time. It would seem that there is a comparatively narrow circle from which these juries are called, and, if the Government are considering the whole question, I suggest that they might consider extending the duty to a greater number of citizens. I do not know enough about the objections, but I do not see any reason why everybody who has a vote should not also have the duty of jury service. That brings up the main proposition that there would have to be some method of compensating the people who came to serve on juries. There is, however, a snag in this matter of compensation which I see and which nobody seems to have mentioned. People already object to the high cost of litigation and we are always talking about the rising cost of living. We will need to be very careful before we decide to put more expense on litigants going to court. While I have pleasure in supporting the proposition, I feel that it is a matter that will have to be very carefully gone into and I think the Government ought to give it consideration.

Mr. Baxter

I think Senator Duffy has done a service in putting down this motion. The whole principle of trial by jury is most important. As Senator O'Brien has rightly said, things are changing and things have changed so much that the conditions which were acceptable to people who were called to serve on juries 15 or 20 years ago are not at all acceptable to-day. I feel that Senator Duffy made a very good case for his motion. It is important that the motion, as worded, should be carefully considered. Senator Duffy, let it be noted, is not asking for payment for juries, and I think that is right. Any chatterbox can advance that point of view and speak of equal pay for equal service, but anybody who has any experience of juries knows that you do not get equal service on a jury. People are called to serve on juries who have not got one sensible contribution to make to the resolving of the problem with which the jury has to deal.

It is important that we should preserve the idea of public service and it is not very good public service, if people are to be paid for it, and perhaps some of them overpaid. That is fundamental. It is true that people who serve on juries to-day, a number of them, are people like those who attend meetings of county councils and other local bodies, people who get their travelling expenses and their out-of-pocket expenses. They get something to cover what it costs them to live out for the day, but there is no consideration for what they may have lost by attending. That is something which it would be very difficult to assess. I agree that if people have to serve on a murder trial jury, which may run into from four to seven, eight or ten days, you have a rather different type of problem and that is a difficulty which would have to be very carefully considered.

I certainly would be very averse from any proposition to pay juries. If you are going to attempt to compensate a man in relation to that sort of service, the whole spirit of trial by jury changes and I commend Senator Duffy's wisdom in wording his motion as he has. While the House may agree to accept the motion as it is—I think Senator Fitzsimons, Senator McGuire and others have indicated that this is something which cannot be resolved by the stroke of a pen, because there are many implications—while the House might accept the motion in spirit and pass it, we all recognise that if the system of trial by jury is to be preserved, if it is to stand for what it has stood for and to mean what we believe it means in the administration of justice, it is important that we should have the system continuing in such a way that men will be prepared to come forward and give service, not because they are paid but because a higher sense of duty still lives amongst us.

I suggest that while the House may agree to accept the motion and the spirit of the motion, we appreciate the fact that there must be, for the Minister and his Department, many considerations which must be carefully weighed, because I and other members of local authorities can see quite clearly what is involved by way of expense, so far as some of the people on county councils, committees of agriculture, and vocational committees are concerned. The Minister and his Department can get from these people experience of what takes place in other branches of the Government service. I have seen farmers often coming in to the county town a distance of 30 or 40 miles to find that they were not called, and, if they could not get home again that day, they had to remain over until the following day. In many counties, amongst the small farming community, these are hardships of a kind that press heavily on the individual. I do not think these people would want payment and I would hate to think that we would establish such a principle because it would be entirely wrong, if these people felt that it had not cost them anything and if they were still prepared to serve because there is still that spirit alive in the country. Commercialise it and the whole atmosphere surrounding the administration of justice takes on an entirely new look. I think that would be unfortunate. I do not agree with Senator Burke that this motion should not be accepted. I think that, generally, it should.

Mr. S. O'Farrell

There was no suggestion by me that anybody should be forced to take payment.

Mr. McCrea

I support this motion which, to my mind, is long overdue. I agree with Senator Baxter that there was never any suggestion of payment for juries in Senator Duffy's motion. What I think he and the Party had in mind, and what everyone should agree with, is that travelling expenses and such out-of-pocket expenses as hotel expenses should be paid to jurors. While Dublin has its own problem, I am not so concerned about Dublin jurors. They have a great many privileges and facilities that country jurors have not got. They have buses and trams at every street corner, if they do not wish to bring out their high-powered cars, to bring them to the Four Courts, as well as trams and buses to bring them back to their comfortable homes. The only qualification for a juror, I believe, is his valuation, and the people I have in mind are the unfortunate farmers trying to exist on ten or 15 acres in a rural district. In my own area, I know cases of people travelling 40 miles; they are summoned to appear in court at 10.30 a.m., when there is neither bus nor train service to bring them there at that hour of the morning. They have to travel either the previous evening or by taking a car. If they take a car, they have to bring it home and it is quite possible they may have to return on the following day and on the day after that. I am sure the Minister is well aware of the hardship inflicted on people in that way. It is a disgrace that jurors do not get at least their travelling expenses and out-of-pocket expenses. I hope the Minister will take notice of this motion in this House and recommend that some measure be brought in to enable jurors to be paid the expenses to which they are entitled in justice.

Mr. Anthony

I wish to support this motion for two or three reasons. My chief reason is that I have had practical experience of the losses sustained by ordinary workers when called upon juries. Within the last week or two, I had two complaints from two jurors who had to absent themselves from work and they were docked their wages for that particular day. These men could ill afford the loss of their wages. It is true that they had not to travel a long distance, as they were resident within the city borough and 1d. or 2d. bus fare would be the amount of their travelling expenses. However, in regard to what Senator Baxter said, is it not true to say that county councillors and others are remunerated to the extent of bus fares?

Mr. Baxter

Yes, and subsistence.

Mr. Anthony

It is not a matter of payment. I have a reasonably good knowledge of the King's English and I cannot read in this motion any question of payment except compensation. The question is to put jurors, especially those coming a long distance, on a par with county councillors and others. They should at least get their return railway fare for the journey they make. Of course, in many cases, as in County Cork, many men have to come from West Cork and make very long journeys by bus and rail and they are delayed overnight, and possibly two nights, in Cork City as jurymen. That would be inflicting a good deal of hardship on such people. If they are small farmers, this happens especially at a time when we are looking for production and still more production. I am not confining my remarks to farmers; I know a number of my own friends in the commercial life of Cork City who are taken away from their jobs occasionally, much to the chagrin and annoyance of their employers.

We must accept things as they are until the law is changed. I know we have a sympathetic Minister, but I do not know what he can do. There is one solution I would offer. It may be considered rather Gilbertian to suggest such a thing. We have heard about the mountain and Mahomet. Could not some arrangement be arrived at by which judges would travel to various towns and hear the cases for the particular neighbourhood? Dublin, of course, is in a different position, as Dublin is top heavy and has more transport services than any other part of the Twenty-Six Counties. However, what I suggest is the only solution I see. I know many of the courthouses in country districts are in very bad repair, but there could be some arrangement by which the judge and jury could be properly housed during the period the court would be sitting. Only one man and counsel would be affected and they could travel, say, 20 miles outside Cork City, to hear cases on the spot. That would solve the difficulty to some extent.

There is just one more example of a case I met in the last fortnight or so. Two men engaged in most important work as craftsmen, where such workmen are very scarce, were summoned for service and this meant a day or two absent and this was holding up production. We have started building on a very promising plan and gone in for extensive constructive work, but does it tend towards more production when we take off this work, from time to time, three or four operatives, perhaps plasterers, masons, carpenters or others? These matters should be considered very carefully.

The whole system is antiquated. It has been there so long that there have been very few reforms, either in the jury system or in many other things pertaining to the law. I would suggest to the Minister that this is a case to which he should listen and, if it can be done, he should lessen the hardships of the present system under which jurors are compelled to travel long distances and remain away from home without any compensation whatever. It is not a question of professional jurymen I am advocating. That may not be a bad point, but I am not suggesting it. I would preserve as far as possible the good old traditions, but things were very free and easy in the old days when these things began to operate. I think the first step would be to put those men travelling long distances on a par with county councillors, namely, pay their travelling expenses.

Minister for Justice (General MacEoin)

This motion has taken me somewhat at a disadvantage, because the period of time was very short when I got notice of it. It is a very important question, but I had not time or opportunity to consult my colleagues on the whole subject. I do not know what the Government view would be on it, nor have I, indeed, any very positive views myself. I will give expression to some that I have very positively, but, not having any clear views on it to submit to the Government, all I can say to the House is that if the House passes this motion I will convey its decision to the Government and, in so far as the brief I have here goes, I will impress upon them the views of the Seanad.

There is one thing that struck me about this motion, that is, that it is a great proof of the advance towards both political freedom and freedom of conscience that we have made in this country that such a motion could be put down. Some 35 years ago, if the British proposed to pay jurors to try a single one of those in this country, we would all go mad and the British would be charged with attempting to buy over jurors and we would say they were paid Castle hacks. But, thank God, the day has come, apparently, in which the Upper House of this State is fairly well convinced that the integrity of our people is now so great that everyone can depend upon a fair trial from their peers, whether they are paid or unpaid. That is a great advantage.

There is another point I would stress. It is true that, in the country, jurors have to travel long distances. I was reared in the country and I know all about it. In reality, what happens is that a certain number of jurors have to travel on a summoned panel on four occasions in the year. There are four openings of the Criminal Courts in the country towns. Therefore, the farmer who is a juror is called upon to exercise this great public function. As far as I know, he does it gladly and is very proud of the fact that he is a juror, that he will stand between a fellow-citizen and the State, that he is called upon to find the facts, without fear, favour or affection, upon the evidence before him. I admit that in the City of Dublin there is a completely different situation and that the Dublin jurors have an obligation placed upon them which is out of all reason. In every High Court case in which one party claims the privilege of a jury, a jury is called and that is every running down case, every big case arising out of a motor car accident, every slander action, libel action or anything like that, and the Dublin juror has to attend for that whether he likes it or not.

I want to make a correction. Somebody said that the person who loses the case pays the juror. There is a fee of five shillings for the juror trying a civil case, which the juror does not get. It goes to the tipstaff, I believe, according to practice. It is the party who wins the case who pays the jury, not the loser. Every murder case is triable only by the Central Criminal Court. That means that every case of that description is tried by a Dublin jury and that it is the dumping ground for all these trials which—to come to Senator Anthony's point of view—could be tried in the country. It is unfair to place this obligation upon the Dublin juror. The Dublin juror has always had a very high regard for his public duty and, notwithstanding the hardships that have been mentioned, has performed it very well.

It is true that grave losses and hardships have been suffered by a great number of people but, in the long run, it is better that it should be so than that there should be any question that a juror could be swayed by any emolument or compensation for time lost. The benefit of the voluntary service outweighs the other. If this House passes the motion I will have the matter examined and, while I am anxious that no person should suffer losses in the interests of the community, I will put the case that I am putting now to the Government. I may perhaps take the view that, in the long run, it would be only a further mark of the advance we have made in our conception of our freedom and independence.

In conclusion, I would like to point out that there is something wrong with Senator Duffy's notes. The maximum fine for failure to report or to answer your name under any circumstances is £3. If a man was fined £10, the judge has been guilty of contempt of his own court and I would be glad if the Senator would give me further information on that point. As to the man who was fined £3 and who served on a jury for four days, I would consider that an outrage. I do not doubt that that is the information the Senator has but, if it occurred, it would be an outrage. When he was called on a jury again and had to serve four days, surely any reasonable judge would remit the £3 fine.

Mr. Duffy

That is true if he had drawn the judge's attention to the fact, but the man may not have done so.

General MacEoin

He did not forget to draw the Senator's attention to it. He would be just as slick with the judge. He is not a fool, when he wrote that letter, and I think he should have some idea of his own rights as a citizen when he was performing this very important duty. I leave the matter to the House and I bow to the Chair's judgement.

Mr. P. O'Reilly

What are the qualifications of jurors?

Mr. Duffy

That does not arise.

General MacEoin

There was a question of extending the class. The idea is that you are tried by your peers. It is difficult to understand a person from the slum area in Dublin being tried by people from Grafton Street and property owners in Rathmines. It is hardly a trial by peers but it is the system.

Mr. Duffy

The characteristic of this debate is the unanimity which has prevailed. The Minister can tell the Government that he saw something in the Seanad which he would rarely see in the Dáil. With the exception of a vote of condolence I have never seen the Dáil unanimous on anything. The Seanad is unanimous, with the one exception of Senator Burke, that this motion should be carried. Senator Burke is opposed to it, not because of what is in the motion but because of something that is not in it. I would recall that what the motion asked for is that there should be refunded to jurymen the amount of their out-of-pocket expenses, plus compensation for loss of time. Without being egoistic, I would say that the words are carefully selected. Their meaning may have eluded some people here but they are selected with great concern for moderation. It has not been suggested that the man who says he lost £100 by serving on a jury would be paid £100. It would be very hard to assess a figure and it was never in my mind that you could accurately assess it. I referred to this at some length in relation to farmers and shopkeepers, but I omitted to say that a man might say that if he had not had to serve on a jury he would have backed a horse which won at 50 to 1 and won £10,000. It would be very difficult, but what this motion calls for is that a juror should be compensated to some extent for his loss, not that he should be paid an amount equal to what he claims he would have earned if he had not served. I gave the British figure, so much for four hours and so much if it went beyond four hours. It is not related to the actual loss but is given as a relief in the case of a person who incurs specified loss which he can show to the court as having been sustained by him.

I do not want to travel over the ground covered by certain speakers who were not concerned with this motion but who were concerned with something else. I am entirely with Senator Baxter and Senator George O'Brien that we should not pay a salary or an allowance or give a gratuity to jurymen as such. I have great regard for public service voluntarily given and given for nothing. I know the country nearly as well as the Minister and I know quite well that there are hundreds of men who are delighted to be able to tell their friends on Sunday that they served on a jury during the week and have dealt with some cases of importance. They know all about the law and if the Attorney-General heard them he would be amazed at their grasp of the law as a result of their experience in court, but they all growl because they have to pay railway fare, pay for a car or a hotel. I can remember very, very many years ago when people attended court as jurymen and travelled a distance of 21 miles. They got there in the morning. Somebody in the neighbourhood had a horse and car and the three or four local jurors travelled together and got back that night. They had not much expense, but the expense to-day would be quite a different matter. What one of these men would pay in a hotel for his luncheon to-day would be as much as the whole four of them spent in a week 40 years ago. That time the half-one was only 2d., and look at what it costs now.

Senator Professor O'Brien recounted the old-time experience of the privileged classes who gave their services to the community free. I am not so convinced that it was as free as the Senator thinks. A landlord who served on a jury trying a fellow for stealing sheep was concerned with seeing that somebody hanged for stealing the sheep or trapping game or hares. The stealing of a sheep was a hanging offence and the landlord who served on a jury gave free services in the interests of his community but he never thought of himself as serving the interests of the community of sheep-stealers. I am anxious about the circumstances of 1949 instead of 1849. and I think Senator Professor O'Brien would agree entirely. Undoubtedly he was enthusiastic in his view that circumstances had changed and that there was a good case for having regard to the expense of people reasonably incurred in performing public duty.

I think the Minister himself, while recognising the Spartan lives of the western farmers, realises that the Dublin carpenter, plasterer or bricklayer who loses £1 for the day and who cannot make it up is entitled to grumble if he is called upon to serve frequently or serve a number of days at a time. In Dublin, I understand, there is a jury panel of 300 for each court. The Central Criminal Court and the Circuit Court may be on, and the High Court judges may be trying criminal cases and, while not all are detailed each day, each of the 300 may be called three or four times a year, so it is a matter of importance.

I do not desire to press the matter further, as the Minister has met us very reasonably. Looking back, I find that the motion was only handed in on February 16th, and usually motions are very much longer on the Order Paper. There was not time to consider it as it should be considered, and I am satisfied with the assurance that it will be considered now.

I would urge that the Minister would not have recourse to the method suggested by Senator Fitzsimons. There is no need for a commission to examine this matter. This House is as representative a body of commissioners as he is likely to get, and this House has expressed its support of the motion subject to reservations very properly made by two or three members, and I think the Minister can regard it as equivalent to a recommendation made by a commission.

Motion agreed to.

The Seanad adjourned at 9.20 p.m. until 3 p.m. on Thursday, 3rd March, 1949.