I move:—
Go gceaduíonn an Dáil leis seo na "Rialacha Cúirte Dúithche" a dhin an tAire Dlí agus Cirt an 9adh lá d'Iúl, 1926, fé alt 91 den Acht Cúirteanna Breithiúnais, 1924 (Uimh. 10 de 1924) agus go mbeartuíd go bhfuil sé oiriúnach na rialacha san do theacht i ngniomh anladh lá de Dheire Fómhair, 1926.
That the Dáil hereby approves of the "District Court Rules" made by the Minister for Justice on the 9th day of July, 1926, under Section 91 of the Courts of Justice Act, 1924 (No. 10 of 1924) and resolves that it is expedient that such rules shall come into operation on the 1st day of October, 1926.
Deputies will see that in these rules a clear distinction has been drawn as to procedure between the cases in which jurisdiction has been conferred on the District Court by way of transfer from the former Petty Sessions Court, the former Justices of the Peace and cases of a civil nature in which jurisdiction has been conferred on the Court by Section 77 (a) of the Courts of Justice Act, 1924. The procedure of the District Court in cases in which jurisdiction has been transferred to them is to be found in Part I. of the Rules. That procedure is based very largely on the Petty Sessions Act of 1851, and on the procedure which became established by custom in the Metropolitan area in dealing with cases in which jurisdiction was given under the Dublin Police Acts. Many changes, have, however, been made from the old procedure with a view to simplifying proceedings in the court and also with a view to saving expense. In connection with proof of service, for instance, under the old procedure it was necessary that the person effecting service of any summons which was the originating document of the court should attend personally before the court and give proof of service on oath. That meant in many cases that a person had to travel considerable distances to give this purely formal evidence, and in any prosecutions by the police a defendant who was convicted had usually to pay the travelling expenses of the Gárda who attended to prove service. Rule 16 provides that instead of the former method of proving service proof can be given by a statutory declaration to be endorsed on the back of the summons. This will relieve the person effecting the service of the necessity of attending before the court, and in cases where a defendant is convicted it will relieve him of the necessity of paying the travelling expenses of such witness. In cities it may be more convenient for the person effecting service to attend court and give evidence as to service. Accordingly, the rule empowers the former procedure to be continued in any court area in which the Justice may so order. There is another rather material point of difference between the former procedure in cases of summary jurisdiction and the new procedure. Whereas under the former procedure a most complicated form of order book had to be kept by the clerk and signed by the Justice, under the new procedure a simple Justice's minute book is provided for by Rule 49, and in this new minute book short particulars of each case and the order made thereon will be entered and signed by the Justice. If any party, for the purpose of appeal or otherwise, desires to have a copy of a formal conviction or of a full order made, he is entitled, under Rule 50, to obtain a certified copy of that full conviction or order.
The procedure as to the civil proceedings will be found in Part II. of the Rules. That procedure is, to a large extent, based on the former procedure of the County Court. It has, however, been simplified and, we think, improved in many respects. Proof of service, in civil proceedings, can be given by statutory declaration in the same manner as proof of service in summary proceedings. A special method of obtaining judgment in the office of the District Court has been provided for in Dublin, Cork, Limerick and Waterford. It is thought that the time is scarcely ripe yet for extending that special procedure to the country generally, but probably after a period of a year or two it can be extended. It is thought that this procedure will be of considerable convenience to litigants. Provision is made also in this part of the Rules for the hearing of cases in the District Court as to the examination of debtors under Part II. of the Enforcement of Court Orders Act, 1926, and also in interpleader cases, jurisdiction in which is conferred on the court by Section 22 of the Enforcement of Court Orders Act.
Under Part III. of the Rules there is provision for the exercise of licensing jurisdiction, and here also the procedure has been simplified. Formerly an applicant for a certificate of transfer of a licence had to make three separate applications to the court. Under the new procedure only two applications will have to be made. Parts IV. and V. of the Rules deal with appeals to the Circuit Court and the High Court, respectively. Under the Petty Sessions Act of 1851 complicated procedure was laid down for appeals from the decisions of justices. This has been very considerably simplified. The costs in civil proceedings are now, we think, very reasonable. Since the circulation of the draft rules I have had a further conference with the Committee, at which the figures set out in the rules as now made were agreed upon. Deputies will realise that the costs which are now prescribed are a reduction, in many cases, of fifty per cent. on the costs as first submitted. The scale now made is considered fair. That, I think, gives the general framework of the rules. Later I would be prepared to deal with any points of detail that Deputies may raise.
