I beg to move the motion standing in my name:
"That it is expedient that a Joint Committee of the Dáil and the Seanad be set up to consider and report what amendments, if any, are required in the Courts of Justice Act, 1924, the Acts amending same and any other Statutes affecting the civil jurisdiction of the Courts of Saorstát Eireann;
That seven Deputies represent the Dáil on the said Joint Committee;
That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers and records."
It would perhaps more correctly read if the first four words in the motion were deleted, with the permission of the Dáil. The motion deals with the courts set up by the Courts of Justice Act, 1924, the jurisdiction transferred to those courts, and the statutes affecting that jurisdiction. Under the Courts of Justice Act three things were accomplished. In the first place, the District Courts were created, and to those courts was transferred all the jurisdiction which had hitherto been exercised by the old Petty Sessions Courts, and in addition there was added a new and enlarged jurisdiction. There was then a Circuit Court set up, to which Court was transferred the entire jurisdiction of the old County Courts, and in addition an increased jurisdiction both in common law cases and in the equity side of law. In the third place, the Courts of Justice Act created a new High Court and a Supreme Court. I wish to make clear that this motion is not brought by way of criticism or in opposition to the Courts of Justice Act of 1924. Quite the contrary. I am bound to admit that that Act has been a very great success. No one at this stage, five years after the Act has passed, will stand up and say that our District Courts are not a very distinct and decided improvement on the old Petty Sessions Courts.
Time has proved to those who have had experience of how the old Petty Sessions Courts administered, how great the improvement has been, and anything in this motion must not be taken as being in any way critical of the jurisdiction created in either the District Courts or in the Circuit Courts, which also have been a very immense success. The great success of the Circuit Courts has been, I think, due to the fact of their enlarged jurisdiction. The High Court and the Supreme Court taking them all in all are open to criticism, as such Courts always will be, and as I hope they will be, but taking them through and through our Courts of Justice to-day are in a position far stronger and more effective than they have been for generations or centuries past. I would rather that this motion should be looked upon, as it is in fact, a necessary corollary to the findings of the Joint Committee of this House and the Seanad to consider and report upon the Circuit Court rules. Time has, of course, shown that the Courts of Justice Act contained a great many flaws.
Every statute similarly passed that I know of creating a great change has, as experience discloses, flaws that could not possibly be foreseen by the draughtsmen. The Courts of Justice Act is no exception. There are inevitably flaws, and the object of the Committee which I suggest is to collect together those flaws, put them into an amending Act, and have one amending Act to deal with them as the intelligence of this House and of another House, and the evidence of both branches of the profession, with such evidence as they may get from the public, and the latter evidence I consider as being of very great importance, can bring together so that we may now, five years after the Courts of Justice Act has been passed, put before this House a Bill which will put an end, at all events for some time, to the amending Bills and the attempts that have been made to patch up this Act by various amending statutes from 1924 up to the present time. If this is not done my suggestion, and the suggestion of those who have experience of these courts, will be that you will have year after year Bills being brought up to amend the Courts of Justice Act in various details. Year after year you will have, as you must have if this matter is to be dealt with adequately at all as difficulties arise, an amending Bill which must and should receive consideration from this House. The Circuit Court Rules took, I think, something like eighteen months or two years to prepare. They were submitted to a joint committee of both Houses, and by a finding, unanimous on this point at all events, they were scrapped as being inadequate and unsuitable for the courts that had been set up. I understand that a new set of rules compiled in obedience to the findings of that committee will shortly be submitted to this House, and again I would suggest that those rules will contain matter that could be adequately and suitably considered only by a committee such as I suggest in this motion.
The reports of the committee already set up did two things which critics suggest were done ultra vires as being beyond the scope of the authority that had been delegated to them. They dealt with the question of the jurisdiction of Circuit Courts, and also with the present system of hearing appeals from the Circuit Courts. It has been suggested, and perhaps not without some reason, that the Circuit Court Committee went a little bit beyond their powers which were to deal with the rules submitted to them as regards matters of appellate jurisdiction and of the jurisdiction of the Circuit Courts. When I tell Deputies that the majority of the committee consisted of lawyers they will recognise the danger they ran of that committee doing a little more than it was authorised to do. I suggest that the proposed committee should get full powers to deal with these matters.
It will probably be suggested that this resolution is wide. It is intentionally wide because these are matters that must be dealt with and, as I suggest, dealt with once and for all. The Circuit Court Committee went into the question of jurisdiction and dealt with common law jurisdiction, civil jurisdiction, of the Circuit Courts as set up under the Act of 1924. The limit of it is £300. By majority, the committee recommended that that jurisdiction should be reduced in certain areas from £300 to £150 excepting Dublin and, of course, Cork, the question of Mayo being I think left in abeyance. I do not want to say anything in connection with this motion as to the merits of that jurisdiction, but I suggest that it is a question which requires consideration, and that there is for consideration and discussion a very serious question as to whether the existing jurisdiction or the Circuit Courts should be reduced, increased, or allowed to remain where it is. Personally at this stage I offer no opinion further than saying that there is this very serious question, as shown by the findings of the Circuit Court Committee, to be discussed.
As regards the question of appeal, for the same reason I do not want to pronounce judgment on the existing system of appeal in advance, but I do think that I am saying nothing controversial when I say that that system has hopelessly broken down in practice. One of the worst things which I heard in this Dáil concerning the question of Circuit Court jurisdiction was the experience of Deputy Ruttledge as regards a certain appeal. What he told us has, I think, been borne out, not perhaps to the same extent as in the instance quoted by him, but by some cases which I could quote. Some of them indeed almost came up to the one case which he cited. What has been found about appeals is this. There is first of all the question of delay. That is not a matter that is open to any discussion. At present appeals have been accumulating to such an extent that there are appeals now waiting from decisions that were given over eighteen months ago. There is no doubt that when appeals are awaiting hearing for more than a year and a half there is something wrong. People have got judgments either plaintiffs or defendants, and now a year and a half after these judgments have been obtained they are still waiting for their appeals to be heard. That is a matter beyond controversy.
It is also beyond controversy that the expense of the present system is at least four times the expense of the system it superseded. In many cases it is ten times the expense of the previous system, but taking it through and through and keeping well on the safe side, the appellate system established by the Courts of Justice Act, 1924, which was professedly brought in in order to expedite and economise the hearing of appeals, has had the opposite effect. The delay has been beyond all reason. The expense has been beyond all reason. To-day an appeal from the Circuit Court is really only open to two classes of people. One is the very well-to-do man, and the other is the pauper who is fearless and weatherproof against the consequences. There is no chance for the ordinary man in the street. Those appeals are not being brought. I give you what is the experience of every advocate engaged in Circuit Court procedure. Appeals are not advised at present in many cases where they could be brought with very reasonable and strong prospects of success under ordinary circumstances. I do not know if anybody could be got to defend the existing system of appeal. I know that there is one class who will be affected by any changes in the present system. There are certain members of the legal profession who will be affected financially by them. I think I can appeal to Deputy Ruttledge and to Deputy Little in this regard, and I am sure they will bear me out when I say that in regard to appeals which they have waiting they will cause them at least five times the trouble which they had previously. I do not think that I am giving any trade secrets away, and I think Deputy Ruttledge will bear me out when I say that all the trouble a solicitor has at present in connection with appeals is the copying of stenographers' notes. In the old days we spent day after day, days which often should have been spent in another way, trying to dictate appeals from our own notes and get them in at the last moment. We have been saved all that trouble by having the stenographer's notes, and if there is any change in the system of appeals you may look on Deputy Ruttledge and myself as two of the chief victims. This system affects people living in poor constituencies. It affects people in seaport constituencies such as mine. Such people are entitled to get redress for their civil wrongs. They are entitled to get it a little cheaply, expeditiously, and near at hand, and not by means of stenographers' notes read in Dublin. What does a person think of an appeal taken behind his back by the reading of notes which he has never seen, and probably with which he would not agree if he did see them? That is a question that ought to be discussed and settled at the earliest possible moment.
There is also another question which I think might reasonably be open for discussion. I do not put it beyond that. Under the Courts of Justice Act there are ages set down for the retirement of the judges of the different courts, and one does wonder how these limits of age were arrived at and what exactly they mean. The intellect of a District Court Justice ceases to be operative at 65. A Circuit Court Judge has intelligence enough left to go on until he is 70, and a High Court Judge can paddle along until he is 73. If the limit had been reversed one could understand it. All I suggest about it is that it is a matter well worthy of consideration, particularly in a country that is already overridden with pensions. The legal history of Ireland shows this beyond dispute— that our greatest judges were at their best at 75 years and upwards. We had one notable example, regarding which every lawyer in Ireland who knew him will corroborate me. The late Chief Baron Palles was the pride and admiration of all of us by reason of his knowledge of law, and we were able in another country when anything was said in criticism of our judges by the people across the water to give them a wipe of Chief Baron Palles. There was no answer to it. Chief Baron Palles, the greatest of our lawyers within living memory, was at his best at the age of 80. Certainly he was better at 80 than he was at 70, and I think it was conceded he was better at 80 than at 75.
I suggest that instead of retiring at 65, and being handed over to the tender mercies of Colonel Brennan to learn golf, the District Justices might be allowed to remain in office until they reach the age of 70, and that if necessary they should get a certificate from the Minister that they were sound in limb and that they had average intellect. There is no reason why they should be put on pension at 65. I do not say that the suggestion which I now make is one that would be altogether popular amongst the legal profession. It may not be popular, but it will be popular in the country, as it is a step in the right direction, and it will show that we as representatives of the people of Saorstát Eireann, when we get a practical opportunity of cutting down pensions, are going to do it. I do not suggest that everybody over 70 or over 75 would of necessity make a very good judge, but I suggest that there are a good many, who are existing judges, who might very well hold on until they are 75, and there are a good many of our District Judges who might very well hold on until they are 70 or 75, provided that if necessary they get a certificate from the Minister for Justice that they are physically and mentally fit. There is no reason why they should not hold on. If they want to go let them go at 70, but if they want to hang on let them hang on, if they are fit to do it, and let this country be saved the burden of their pensions.
The point I want to stress is that under the procedure created by the Courts of Justice Act at present, particularly so far as it affects jurisdiction in the case of the Circuit Courts and District Courts, there is a multiplicity of points involved that at present are in a state of doubt. I can I believe put to a solicitor having experience of practice in the District Courts and Circuit Courts an examination paper and give, say either Deputy Ruttledge or Deputy Little, a paper with twelve questions set out and you will get this general comment, that they could not give you a definite answer as these matters are in doubt. I do not know whether they could give an answer or not, but for myself I would have to answer that these matters are not yet settled. That is not as it should be. There are a whole number of matters in doubt. At present a matter that is gravely in doubt is how long a decree of the Circuit Court remains in force if the amount of the decree is over £50 and if the amount of the decree is under £50. Perhaps the Minister for Justice will tell us. If he will be able to elucidate that difficulty even at this stage it would be of great assistance to a great many people. Is there any power to renew such a decree? That is a difficulty that arises every day in the Circuit Courts. Some people will tell you there is power to renew under the old county court jurisdiction, but that is not attached to the new jurisdiction. The matter is still, to put it at its best, in a state of very great doubt.
Again, the question arises of a defendant being such by a person residing out of the jurisdiction. Can he demand security for costs? The Minister for Justice might perhaps enlighten us, because I do not know. This I do know, that an attempt has been made to solve that mystery by a committee set up to frame rules for the District Courts. That was a Departmental Committee. It had on it Justices and very able Justices who had all some experience of their jurisdiction and their work and I will tell you what they were able to do for us. To give an example that will appeal to the ordinary lay mind, if a plaintiff comes across from London to sue a peasant in the Co. Mayo for £5, and if the peasant has a set-off against the London merchant for £10—that is if on the balance the man from Mayo owes nothing to the London man but has £5 coming to him—the District Justice will, without compelling security for costs from the London man, give a decree against the Mayo man for £5 and tell the man from Mayo "Go to London, you, and sue for your £10 there." When he goes across to London he will find himself face to face, as a preliminary step, with having to put down a large and in many cases a prohibitive amount as security for costs.
Of course, that is a point that occurs in a minor way every second day in this country. We have a dispute between two men involving cross claims. They live in adjoining townlands and they both have the same District Justice. One of them lives in one court area and the other lives in a second court area. The solemn farce has to be gone through of A bringing B to one court and B replying by bringing A to another court instead of hearing and disposing of the two cases together just as was done in the old County Court times. Unfortunately it was done at the expense of the lawyers, there being only one case instead of two. It was done in that way in the old days and it gave satisfaction to everybody except the unfortunate attorney who had to combine the two cases and accept the fees that would be attached to one.
That is a matter that needs immediate attention. A remedy is overdue. By having such cases dealt with at the one time it would save the expense of a second action and it can be easily provided that the solicitor shall get some additional remuneration, some reasonable remuneration, in view of the changed circumstances. Money would be saved to litigants and the cost of two trials would be avoided. That is only one of many examples that could be given and it typifies the condition of things the Committee would have to consider. Other points arise every day. I do not know whether the point is still cleared up about a man who gets a new licence from a Circuit Court Judge. Does he require a confirmation of that licence? If it is not granted at the Michaelmas Session has he to wait until a later sitting? On the other hand, would he have to get confirmation in the Michaelmas Session for what was granted him in June? I am not at all clear on the point whether he has to come forward a second time in order to get confirmation of his licence. This is one matter which really calls for earnest consideration on the part of the Committee.
I suggest that as regards the other examples I have given, a layman would in many respects be as good if not a better judge than a lawyer. When it is suggested, as it may fairly be suggested, that this is a matter that ought to be dealt with by a Committee of experts, I say that there ought to be experts on the Committee and I believe that within the four walls of this building—in the Dáil and in the Seanad— you can find people with sufficient technical experience and sufficient ability to carry out the task allotted to them. On a Committee so selected you will have every section of the community represented. You ought to be able to get a better Joint Committee out of the Dáil and Seanad than by any other method that I know of. I think that a Joint Committee set up by this House and the Seanad would be more acceptable and that their findings would be better taken by the country and by the members of the profession concerned than would the findings of a Committee set up in any other way.
I do not suggest for a moment that the task of the Committee would be an easy one. It will have to deal not merely with the Courts of Justice Act, but there are at present on the Statute Book a number of sections of various Acts of Parliament that have fallen into desuetude, and are really inapplicable to the new jurisdiction. Yet these Acts have not been formally repealed. The question constantly arises, should the requirements of those sections be still followed compulsorily even in cases where they are for all practical purposes entirely inadequate and unsuitable? On that account the Joint Committee in their desire to discharge their task properly will have to go over a very wide period. The task will not be a very easy or expeditious one.
The task will be thrown on the Committee of getting the opinion of those affected by those Acts from all sides of the Saorstát, from the northern limits to the southern limits, and to find put not merely what affects Cork but what affects Dublin and particularly what affects the poorer constituencies and thus try to do what I believe the Courts of Justice Act aimed at, to provide litigation at the smallest expense and with the least possible delay— satisfactory litigation, satisfactory courts and satisfactory appeals. With that object and with that object alone I propose the motion standing in my name.
In conclusion, I have only just this point to add. I have not discussed the fringe of the merits of the different points arising for discussion before this Committee. I could give you, as any member of my profession could give you, scores of points that will have to be considered by the Joint Committee. I do not want to say a word beyond that. These are matters for the Committee's consideration and my submission to this House is that they can only be adequately dealt with by a Committee set up in the manner suggested by the motion which I have moved.
