I think the Senator is envisaging a situation where a person is ill and he or she is interpreting the section to mean that such a person could not get another person to tell the registrar: "I am sick. I am not able to go to court. Could you take back your summons?" Quite frankly I think that is an unreal situation. If a person is ill and his wife, son or someone else goes along and says: "Mr. X who got the summons is ill. He is suffering from so-and-so. Here is the doctor's certificate". That is the end of that. The registrar would be entitled to grant the excusal. He could not insist on a man coming who was unable to come. That is about the size of it. If the amendment was to be accepted it would be equally valid to have it in relation to subsection (1), paragraph (a), (b) and (c). Take for example, subsection (1) (a). It would be necessary after the words:
that person is one of the persons specified in Part II of the First Schedule
and the words:
informs the county registrar.
to insert the words: "he or someone acting on his behalf in the event of his incapacity through illness or otherwise". To be entirely consistent one would have to insert the same amendment in those three paragraphs. Perhaps not so much in paragraph (a) but certainly in paragraphs (b) and (c) it would have to be inserted.
It might meet what the Senator has in mind if we were to put in a new subsection (3) that if a person was summoned as a juror under this Act and is unable, owing to illness or any other reason, to make any representation to the county registrar under subsection (1) or (2), other persons may make representation on his behalf. That would possibly meet what the Senator has in mind. But I feel there is no need for it.
The words "if that person shows to the registrar" clearly allow that person to show through his wife, son, solicitor or through some third party to the registrar that he is ill or whatever the reason for his non-attendance or his wish to be excused. If we get in "someone acting on his behalf" there is the danger here that I adverted to in the case of Senator Ryan's amendment. It is less of a danger because the person has to be acting on his behalf and I presume he would have to be seen to be so. Again, somebody acting on behalf of a person whose IQ is a matter of some doubt or who has some handicap might think that that person was fit to be summoned, but there could be a third party intervening. I admit that it is possibly unlikely to happen. The use of the words "on his behalf" would probably cure that unless a very badly disposed person were to claim to be acting on behalf of somebody else without having authority to do so.
I am in some dilemma about the amendment. I would prefer not to accept it on the grounds that I think it is unnecessary and it is adding words in subsection (2) which, strictly speaking, to be logical, should be added in the earlier subsection. I do not know if the suggested new subsection (3) I have read out would satisfy the Senator. That is, to put that in a new subsection to deal specifically with making representations where a person is ill and so on. Can Senators imagine a situation where a person is ill, but the county registrar would say: "I am sorry. Unless he tells me himself that he is ill, I cannot accept that he is ill"?
