Vol. 6 No. 38
I move: "That the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment 1":—
Section 1.—Immediately before Sub-section (6) a new Sub-section (6) inserted as follows:—
(6) A court of summary jurisdiction shall not have jurisdiction in respect of any of the offences mentioned in Part II. of the Schedule to this Act unless the court is of opinion that the facts proved against the accused constitute a minor offence fit to be tried summarily.
I move: "That the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendments 2 and 3," as follows:—
Section 7.—In sub-section (1) all words after the words "public funds," in line 10, page 6, deleted.
In sub-section (1) immediately after paragraph (c), page 6, a new paragraph (d) inserted as follows:—
(d) funds which ought to be in the custody or under the control of a Minister or a Government Department.
These amendments may be taken together. They are simply to meet an objection to the word "funds" in what was previously paragraph (c).
I move: "That the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment 4, which is as follows:
In sub-section (2) the words "the Minister for Finance" deleted in line 21 and the following words inserted in lieu thereof "an independent assessor nominated by the President and named in the public notice aforesaid."
This amendment is a more substantial one than the others. It was inserted to meet an objection in the Seanad to the procedure by which the Minister for Finance, having obtained a stop order from a District Justice, could, on his own responsibility, confiscate funds in the absence of evidence being produced rebutting the presumption that the funds were the proceeds of stolen property, or were, in fact, themselves stolen funds. It was urged that the Courts could be brought into the matter and it should only be done after such presumption had been withheld by the District Justice. Personally, I see grave objection to identifying the Courts with this procedure at all, which is, in fact, a procedure of confiscation on strong presumption, but still on something short of legal proof. Clearly it would be objectionable to establish a precedent of the Courts being involved in that kind of action. When we decided that it was necessary in the interests of the State, for instance, to arrest, detain, and intern people on something short of legal proof, we did not ask the Courts to throw their sanction over that matter. Similarly, I saw objection to asking the Courts to sanction a confiscation that would take place on something short of full legal evidence which would, in effect, be based on very strong presumption. There was that conflict of view, and to meet it an amendment was inserted stating that the Minister for Finance shall not act entirely on his own judgment and responsibility in the matter, but shall act on the advice of an independent assessor, nominated by the President and named in the public notice. That amendment was accepted by those in the Seanad who were urging that the Minister for Finance should not be placed in what was a quasi judicial position. I move the amendment, and there are certain consequential amendments to it.
I move: "That the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendments 5 and 6," which are as follows:—
In sub-section (2), paragraph (c), all the words after the words "public funds" in line 30 deleted.
In sub-section (2) immediately after paragraph (c) a new paragraph (d) inserted as follows:—
(d) funds which ought to be in the custody or under the control of a Minister or a Government Department.
These amendments are similar to amendments Nos. 2 and 3, and I move their acceptance.
I move "That the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment 7," which is as follows:
The following words added at the end of the sub-section (2), line 34:
"Every person named as an assessor under this sub-section shall be either a person holding judicial office in Saorstát Eireann or a practising member of the Senior Bar in Saorstát Eireann."
This amendment defines and describes the person who shall be appointed as assessor under this sub-section. He shall be either a person holding judicial office in Saorstát Eireann or a practising member of the Senior Bar in Saorstát Eireann.
I just draw attention to what seems to me to be a very thin line of demarcation between the court and a person who holds judicial office. Theoretically there is an important distinction, but when the Minister raises objections to allowing the court to be the instrument of confiscation of property, and says that he is prepared to name the assessor, who is to be a person holding judicial office, the average man in the street would not be quite able to see the distinction and would almost suggest that the person to be appointed assessor ought to be the man in the street, and not a judicial person at all.
I move: "That the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment 8" which is as follows:—
8. In sub-section (3) the words "Minister for Finance," line 37, deleted and the words "assessor aforesaid" inserted in lieu thereof.
This is a consequential amendment.
