Select Committee on Legislation and Security debate -
Thursday, 24 Feb 1994

SECTION 3.

Mr. G. Mitchell

I move amendment No. 7:

In page 3, between lines 39 and 40, to insert the following:

"(b) by the substitution of the following definition for the definition of ‘Judge of the District Court':

"‘Judge of the District Court' means a judge of the District Court assigned to the Dublin Metropolitan District except for the purposes of section 27 (1) or (10) of the Principal Act (as substituted by section 8 of the Extradition (Amendment) Act, 1994) where it shall mean any judge of the District Court.',".

This section, if it were accepted, would probably give rise to section 4 being substantially amended or withdrawn, because section 4 is very repetitive. It repeats the words "a judge of the District Court assigned to the Dublin Metropolitan District" and it seems to be a very legalistic way of expressing what I want to express by this tighter amendment. I suggest that instead of redrafting the section so that in every subsection in section 4, a judge of the District Court means a judge of the District Court assigned to the Dublin Metropolitan District, we insert a definition to the effect that a judge of the District Court means a judge of the District Court assigned to the Dublin Metropolitan District except for purposes of section 27 (1) or (10) of the Principal Act as substituted by section 8 of the Extradition (Amendment) Act. That deals with the question of warrants, which allows any district judge to issue a warrant. If we were to use that wording it would be a lot easier for people to understand precisely what we are about. Section 4 is very unwieldy as it is drawn there and in my view and according to advice given to me it would be less clear than the tighter wording I am proposing in this amendment.

Mrs. Geoghegan-Quinn

The Deputy is quite right that after this Bill is enacted it is only in a few circumstances that a judge of the District Court outside the nominated Dublin judges will have a role in the extradition process. It will arise only in the area of the issue of provisional warrants. However, I must point out that this arises under section 49 in Part III of the 1965 Act, as well as under section 27, so the amendment is flawed in so far as it overlooks section 49. Section 49 provides an example of why it is a good idea to have a separate definition of "Judge of the District Court" and "Judge of the District Court assigned to the Dublin Metropolitan District". Subsection (1) of that section refers to any judge of the District Court, while the reference in subsection (3) is intended to be limited to a judge of the District Court assigned to the Dublin Metropolitan District. It would cause considerable confusion if, as the amendment proposes, we use only one definition throughout the Bill. It would not be clear from the section which subsection applied to nominated judges only and which applied to all judges of the District Court. Although the use of the long definition in section 4 may appear ponderous, Deputies will appreciate that two separate definitions are required for the purpose of clarity.

Deputy Mitchell said that if the amendment was accepted, substantial changes would have to be made to section 4, but in fact it would allow us to dispense with section 4. There are other reasons for retaining section 4, which has two purposes. It replaces the references to district justices by references to judge of the District Court assigned to the Dublin Metropolitan District. In addition, it deletes the references to peace commissioners in those subsections of the 1965 Act referred to in section 4 of the Bill. Even if I could accept the Deputy's amendment, we would need to retain section 4 to deal with the situation in relation to peace commissioners. The approach taken in the Bill is to restate the provisions, as amended, in the Bill. This achieves greater clarity and for that reason I am not prepared to accept Deputy Mitchell's amendment.

Mr. M. McDowell

Are all the references to peace commissioners being withdrawn from the original Act, including section 48?

Mrs. Geoghegan-Quinn

Yes.

Mr. M. McDowell

That is an achievement of mine.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Section 3 agreed to.

NEW SECTION.

Mr. M. McDowell

I move amendment No. 8:

In page 4, before section 4, to insert the following new section:

"4.—All proceedings under the Principal Act shall be heard by a judge of the High Court and the District Court shall have no jurisdiction under the Principal Act.".

In 1987 and 1990, we suggested it would be appropriate to deal with all extradition procedure in the High Court. It is strange that a district judge dealing with an extradition request for a political, a revenue or a military law offence is obliged to make an order, although he knows his order must be set aside. It is extraordinary that the District Court is required to make an order which it knows as a matter of law is effectively bad because no single court makes a decision on the issue. Major delays are caused by including the District Court layer. Submissions must be made before the District Court and the Attorney General sends barristers to that court to shepherd the case through, although he knows that in all political cases it must go to the High Court where a second fight takes place. If there is a legal dispute, it should be confined to one rather than two courts.

Mrs. Geoghegan-Quinn

The question of giving the High Court exclusive jurisdiction in extradition proceedings was considered at length in the preparation of this legislation. It was decided that such an approach would not be appropriate nor, indeed, would it result in any great advantage. In an ordinary extradition case issues to be resolved are straightforward and are within the competence of District Courts. Deputies will agree that it would be absurd if an extradition case involving an offence carrying a maximum sentence of one year's imprisonment went to the High Court. To involve the High Court in non-controversial or non-contentious extradition cases would not be of benefit and it might clog up the work of that court.

Consideration was given to the possibility of introducing a provision whereby the District Court could be bypassed if the case involved issues which had to be resolved at High Court level. Deputy McDowell will know from his experience in the courts that it is not always possible to tell in advance which cases will be contentious and, in practice, little time would be saved. The delays associated with extradition cases arise with High Court and Supreme Court proceedings rather than with District Court proceedings. Bypassing the District Court would not necessarily save time.

Many High Court and Supreme Court cases on extradition centred around the scope of the political offence exception. In the long term the clarification being brought about by this Bill will reduce the number of such cases.

Mr. M. McDowell

I accept the Minister's reply. Returning to section 48 of the Principal Act, the reference in that section to the peace commissioner does not appear to be covered by this Bill. One reference may have been missed.

Mrs. Geoghegan-Quinn

I will look at that before Report Stage. It was intended to cover it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Sections 4 and 5 agreed to.