Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Friday, 1 Aug 1924

Vol. 8 No. 21

PUBLIC BUSINESS. - CRIMINAL APPEAL RULES.

I beg to move:—

Go gceaduítear Rialacha na nAthchomhare gCoiriúil, 1924, a dineadh do réir Alt 36 den Acht Cúirteanna Breithiúnais, 1924, agus a tíolacadh do Dháil Eireann do réir Alt 101 den Acht san iniu, Dé hAoine, 1 Lúnasa, 1924.

That the Criminal Appeal Rules, 1924, made pursuant to Section 36 of the Courts of Justice Act, 1924, and which were presented to Dáil Eireann pursuant to Section 101 of that Act on to-day, Friday, 1st August, 1924, be approved.

Under the Courts of Justice Act, 1924, Section 36, the Minister for Home Affairs, now the Minister for Justice, under the Ministers and Secretaries Act, is empowered, subject to the concurrence of the Minister for Finance in respect of matters affecting revenue or expenditure, to make Rules of Court governing proceedings in the High Court and Supreme Court, including the Court of Criminal Appeal. These rules require the concurrence of the majority of the Committee consisting of the Judges of the Supreme Court and High Court, the President of the Incorporated Law Society, and two practising barristers selected by the Bar Council. That body was duly constituted. Pending the making of these Rules, which is a work of considerable difficulty, there is power to carry on under the existing Rules. The Court of Criminal Appeal, however, is in a class to itself. It is an entirely new conception, and it was inconvenient to hear criminal appeals without at least some temporary Rules. It was represented to me that it would be desirable to have Rules made and approved by the Oireachtas before the Recess in respect of proceedings in criminal appeals, there being no existing Rules under which such appeals could be carried on.

The Rules now before the Dáil, entitled "Criminal Appeal Rules, 1924," were drafted by the Committee of judges and lawyers that I have mentioned, and they have been considered in my Department, and have been duly signed by myself and by the Minister for Finance. The Dáil will appreciate that when the General Rules of the new Courts are being made, these Criminal Appeal Rules can be reviewed if, owing to the haste of their preparation, they are found to be in any way defective in practice. They have been before the Seanad, and have been approved by that body, and I ask the approval of the Dáil for them now on the basis that an opportunity will be given to amend them, or further consider them when the general Rules of the entire courts system will come under review here.

I would like to know from the Minister which of the Rules we are to approve—the Rules covered by the declaration signed by the Minister for Justice and the Minister for Finance, and also the Schedule signed by the Committee, or the Rules as amended by this White Paper. The Rules which appear to have been approved by the Seanad, and which have been circulated, contain a rule on page 40 which we are asked to delete. Then we are asked to insert another Rule after Rule 43 which is not on the paper at all as approved by the Seanad, or the Ministers, or the Committee. I would like to have some guidance as to whether it is the Rules in this paper, or in this paper plus this other one, and if the two are to be taken together. Which is it that the Ministers have sanctioned?

Certain printer's errors are corrected in this attached sheet, and I am asking the approval of the Dáil for these printed Rules as corrected by this typed sheet. In getting these out in time to lay them before the Dáil to-day, certain errors crept in in the printing which have been corrected in this sheet.

This is not a matter of errors. There are a certain number of errors, obviously printer's errors. In the printed paper there are certain rules which are numbered consecutively. It is these rules which have been referred to in the front page as signed by the Ministers and by the committee. That includes the rules regarding the Rules of Court. These are the rules presumably which have been before the Seanad. Now we are asked to agree to certain rules, minus one but plus another. We are asked to insert a new rule, 43, which is typed on the white sheet of paper and is not in the rules as approved by the Minister or apparently drawn up by the committee. We are asked to delete one of the rules drawn up by the committee. That places me in a quandary and I suggest, unless there is absolute necessity, the whole matter be deferred until the Ministers have a little more time to consider it.

I have had sufficient time to consider it. I recognise that the Deputy's time is somewhat limited. This represents the original draft that was printed. It was found that there were certain errors and it was again submitted to the committee. Anything that appears on this sheet of paper is the correction of the committee, approved by me, to this first print. The Deputy need have no qualms lest anything set out in the typewritten copy has not been approved in the manner prescribed by the Courts of Justice Act. These corrections are corrections made by the committee and approved of and concurred in by me.

Which of the drafts was presented to the Seanad?

Would it not have been possible since the time the Seanad met to have the rules printed and this inserted?

I doubt it very much.

I simply want to record my formal protest against this procedure.

Question put and agreed to.
Barr
Roinn