There was one matter raised here with regard to legal aid for poor persons. It has been considered and it is not considered that it could suitably be dealt with in this Bill. If the Government decided to do something along those lines, a separate Bill will be required. It could not be included in this Bill. The only other matter I wish to deal with is in respect of the objections raised here with regard to appeals. The only thing I have to say is that I contend—and if the contrary can be shown, I should like to receive some evidence—that the overwhelming majority of the Bar and the Solicitors' profession, who have the interests of the public at heart, and their own interests, is in favour of the adoption of this system for the rehearing of appeals. I think it is the view of the Bar Council and of the Incorporated Law Society that this system should be adopted.
In Committee on Finance. - Courts of Justice Bill, 1934—Supplementary Money Resolution (Resumed).
Did the Minister say that it was the recommendation of the Bar Council?
I understand that it is the view of the Bar Council and of the Incorporated Law Society.
With jurisdiction reduced to £150?
I know they want a restriction but that is their view on the question of appeals.
Did they add anything about other judges and whether the notes were to be read?
Yes, there was a separate proposal in regard to it. In paragraph 23 of the report the Committee say:
In many of the smaller cases in the Circuit Court, the instructions for the proceedings are given by poor and ignorant people, and are necessarily hurriedly taken, and there is no formal direction of proofs, with the result that it is only when the case has been heard that the true legal issues are discovered and the necessary evidence ascertained. In many of these cases the only chance of ultimate justice being done is by a rehearing on appeal, and so far as the encouragement of perjury is concerned, the Committee are of opinion that there is much less chance of successful perjury where there is a rehearing of the case on appeal.
Resolution agreed to?
We have been discussing nominally a Resolution which has to deal with pensions and remunerations to assistant justices. I do not think anybody is going to object to pensions and remuneration to assistant justices, but, unfortunately, the discussion has ranged over the whole Resolution, and if this Vote is to be taken as an expression of opinion on expenditure on the new Courts of Justice Bill, I am against it and want to divide, but only on that condition.
I suggest that we agree to the Money Resolution and express our several opinions on the details that we have been permitted to discuss, owing to special circumstances, as they arise on the sections of the Bill.
Is Deputy McGilligan objecting?
I am not objecting to pensions and remuneration for assistant justices of the District Court.
It is an arrangement between Deputy McGilligan and myself.