Seanad Éireann debate -
Thursday, 27 Feb 1986

Vol. 111 No. 10

Courts (No. 2) Bill, 1986: Second and Subsequent Stages.

Question proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

Minister for Justice (Mr. Dukes)

The Bill before the House is a straightforward, although a somewhat technical Bill. Its purpose is:

(i) to designate Galway as a High Court appeals town for appeals from the Circuit Court sitting in the County Borough of Galway, and

(ii) to allow the Minister for Justice, after consultation with the President of the High Court, to alter the composition of a High Court Circuit by adding or removing counties and/or county boroughs.

The need for the legislation arises from the fact that under the Courts of Justice Act, 1936, Galway is specified as the appeal town for the county of Galway only. The county borough of Galway was established in 1 January 1986, under section 5 of the Local Government (Reorganisation) Act, 1985, and is not, therefore, comprehended by the 1936 Act. This legislation will cater for the new county borough.

Under existing legislation the counties and county boroughs (other than the county of Dublin and the county borough of Dublin) which existed at the time of the passing of the 1936 Act are divided into four High Court Circuits, namely, the Eastern, Western, Southern and Northern Circuits. The county of Galway only is included in the Western Circuit. It will be necessary for me, as soon as this legislation is passed and after consultation with the President of the High Court, to make an order adding the County Borough of Galway to the Western Circuit of the High Court.

There is provision also in the Bill which will ensure that appeals lodged before passing of this Act may be heard by the High Court on circuit sitting in Galway.

This Bill is necessary for the due administration of justice and I commend it to the House.

Mr. E. Ryan

The Bill is quite necessary and we have no objection to it.

Mr. O'Leary

I do not think I could match the brevity and clarity of mind of Senator E. Ryan in his analysis of the difficulty which arose as a result of the Local Government (Reorganisation) Act, 1985. There are a number of matters which the Minister might like to address when he replies to the debate on Second Stage. I would like him to outline the circumstances in which this difficulty arose. Why was it not spotted by the Attorney General's Office and the Parliamentary Draftsman who, we are told when we seek to amend Bills ourselves, have an all-seeing eye, in that whatever ideas we might have, they have already thought of them and rejected them.

Here is an example — and it is not the first example — of a piece of legislation being drawn up with results which were not originally intended. How could it happen that in the Courts of Justice Act the creation of the Galway county borough would give rise to a situation where the High Court on circuit could not operate in respect of that area? Obviously, the mistake has to be corrected. This legislation has to be passed, and I welcome the legislation.

It is reasonable to ask how is it that, to an increasing extent, we seem to be presented from time to time with these short pieces of legislation correcting mistakes which are made. In so far as we failed to spot it, I suppose it was a mistake of ours too. For that I am sure I accept my proportional share of responsibility, which I think is one-sixtieth of whatever responsibility is due to the Seanad in these matters.

I would like to ask the Minister what were the circumstances in which this most unfortunate set of circumstances arose, as a result of which, I understand, the High Court on circuit could not, during the next week, have operated in County Galway in respect of the cases which might have originated in what is now the Galway County Borough. The Minister might also explain the significance of the second schedule in the Courts of Justice Act, 1936, and the inclusion of the Galway County Borough in that schedule. Why, if that is the case, is it then necessary for the Minister to make an order, as he proposes to make, under the new, additional powers which it is proposed to give him as a result of the amendment of section 33 (2) (a) by the inclusion of a new subsection, called subsection (A) (a)? Why is that necessary? Is it in order to bring about a grouping of the counties and county boroughs, or are these groupings already in existence by the inclusion of the Galway County Borough in the Second Schedule of the Courts of Justice Act, 1936? The Minister might like to address these two points: what were the circumstances in which this mistake was made and, secondly, what is the necessity for making the consequential order under section 33 when this Bill is passed?

Mr. Dukes

The need for this particular measure was brought to my attention and to my Department's attention about a month ago by advice from the Attorney General. I make the point that the need for having this measure did not become apparent until then. There was, therefore, a lacuna in our legislative administrative arrangements which this measure is to fill. I do not know where or when claims have been made that particularise our all-seeing capacities. I do not make that claim for my eyes. I do, however, with the assistance of this House, try to ensure that they see as far as possible, that is, beyond the optical correction that I require all of the time.

That is how the matter arose. It is urgent to do it now because the High Court will be sitting on 3 March. Were we not to take a measure of this kind a number of appeals could not be heard by the High Court, that is, those arising in what is now the county borough of Galway. The significance of the Schedule is that section 1 (a) of this Bill inserts a new line into the schedule which designates Galway as the appeal town for Galway County Borough. The Schedule in the 1936 Act sets out, in respect of each county or county borough, what the designated appeal town for that county or county borough is.

The intent of subsection (1) (b) is effectively to bring about a situation where, should the need arise or become apparent in future, for whatever reason, to alter the composition of a Circuit — as you will see in the text of the Bill — by adding to or removing from the Circuit a county or counties, a county borough or county boroughs, or a county or counties and a county borough or county boroughs — that can be done under the provisions of the 1936 Act, as hereby amended without the requirement of a new Bill to be brought before the Houses of the Oireachtas.

The Senator asks: "Why an order"? The 1936 Act already makes provision for Orders, in the event that it is proposed to alter either number of High Courts circuits or without altering the number of High Court circuits to make variations that may appear proper in the distribution of the counties between the circuits, that is always, with the exclusion of Dublin. The provision of the order is to ensure that there is proper legislative oversight of the proposal. The proposal, I would point out, is one originated by the Minister for Justice in consultation with the President of the High Court and then submitted by way of an Order laid before the Houses of the Oireachtas.

Question put and agreed to.

Agreed to take the remaining Stages today.

Bill put through Committee, reported without amendment, received for final consideration and passed.