But I do think I am entitled to make a protest against this Estimate being taken at this time, the result of which will be that we may not have in this financial year, certainly not before the general election, an opportunity of discussing the very grave and vital matters, from the point of view of the public and the administration of justice, that emerged during the hearing of that particular case.
There are one or two controversial matters that arise on this Estimate to which I will have to refer. On the whole, there is very little of a controversial type, other than the subject to which I have referred, dealt with in this Estimate. Most of the matters I want to touch upon are, I think, matters that will be non-controversial.
The first point I wish to advert to is the provision in the Estimate for a temporary staff in connection with the execution of court orders. There is a sum of £4,388 provided in the Estimate for that particular service. That figure represents a slight decrease on the corresponding figure of last year. I would like to have from the Minister some details as to the nature and the quality of the staff on which that expenditure is proposed to be made. They are described in the Estimates as temporary staff. I deduce, and it is only an inference of my own—probably a correct inference—that the persons who come within the ambit of the description of temporary staff are those people who have been going round the country in the last 12 months assisting the sheriff in the execution of orders equivalent to court orders in connection with land annuity defaulters. I want to know from the Minister does he anticipate, during the course of the next 12 months, that there will be any necessity for the expenditure on the type of persons who have been employed on this work during the last 12 months? I emphasise the words "type of persons." Irrespective of the question of whether or not additional assistance may be required in connection with the execution of court orders, or orders of Ministers equivalent to court orders, I think we ought to be told whether or not the Minister has now definitely come to the conclusion that the type of persons who have been employed on this work are a disgrace and a scandal to this country, and that the type of persons who have been employed on this work should be dispensed with and proper material supplied.
In the course of the last 12 months we have had two cases that came before the courts. In one case a Dublin jury gave a verdict of £400 against the sheriff of the County Cork for illegal seizure in connection with a defaulting annuitant. In another case, a jury, either of the City or of the City and County of Cork, gave a decree against the same sheriff for a sum of £177. I would not have referred to the second decree were it not for the fact that I have been informed in the last couple of days, authoritatively, that while there had been an appeal pending on behalf of the sheriff in that particular case, from Cork, notice of withdrawal of that appeal had been served, and, therefore, I am entitled to refer to the matter. So, therefore, we have two cases in the last 12 months where juries—one a jury of the City of Dublin, drawn from a panel of business men here in the City of Dublin, under the impartial direction of the then President of the High Court, giving nothing but the very strictest interpretation of the law and forcing the plaintiff to a very rigid adherence to the pleadings in that particular case—we have that jury of independent business men of the City of Dublin expressing by their verdict their abhorrence of the methods that were employed, in connection with the execution of court orders, to the extent of £400. A jury of the City of Cork, or of the City and County of Cork, did the same.
It might be said by the Minister, or by some of his supporters, that a jury of the City and County of Cork, or a jury drawn partly from the City and partly from the County of Cork, would not be independent in a matter of this kind. Be it so; we have the fact that a jury of the City of Dublin—a jury of business men in the City of Dublin— expressed their disapproval of the methods employed in the execution of court orders. I think we are entitled to know whether the Minister proposes to continue the employment of the same sort of people as were employed in connection with the execution of those orders or of Ministerial decrees equivalent to court orders. I can say here, what was perfectly apparent in court during the evidence of those individuals, that they had no conception whatever of their duties to the defaulting debtor as sheriffs' assistants. Now, at least if the Minister proposes to continue the employment of that particular type of person who, in my opinion, ought not to be in the public service, or if he proposes to continue any other type of people in this service, I think it is necessary in the public interest, apart altogether from the interest of defaulting annuitants or debtors, that those people who are engaged in the execution of court orders should be taught the fundamental and elementary principles on which the execution of court orders rests. So far as these particular individuals were concerned—and I take it that they were typical of the people on whom the taxpayers spent over £5,000 last year and will be spending £4,500 during the coming year—it is in the public interest that these people should have at least some conception of the law in reference to execution that was summed up in one sentence in a judgment: That it is the duty of the sheriff and his officers to hold the scales of justice evenly between debtor and creditor. As the proposition came as something in the nature of a thunderclap to these gentlemen who have been taking the part of the Minister in this connection, I am satisfied, from their attitude in the box and from their evidence, that they were under no conception that they owed any duty to the debtor, but only to the person who paid them, the sheriff and ultimately the Minister and the taxpayer—that it was their job to go in and scoop in everything they saw and which they could take away with the machinery which they had at their disposal. That it was part of their duty to hold the scales evenly between creditor and debtor was a thing that never entered into their heads.
Now, again, looking at it broadly and looking at it entirely from the point of view of the public interest, I think that it is essential that that principle should be enforced in connection with executions, whether for Government debts or for private debts, and that that principle should be known by every Government employee or by anybody who proposes or purports to levy anything in the nature of distress or execution on the goods of a debtor. Looking at it from a broad point of view, and leaving aside the heated controversies of the last three or four years, it is proper now, I think, in the calmer atmosphere that now prevails— it is right and proper, I think, that we should have an assurance from the Minister that all Government employees who are engaged in the execution of court orders, whether they be orders of courts of justice or whether they be Ministerial decrees having the force of court orders under statute, should realise and understand that they owe a duty to the person from whom they are seizing his goods, not to do him any more damage than they reasonably can help.
Consideration of that matter brings me to the point as to whether the Minister could consider, or has considered, or whether his Department has considered, the advisability of retaining the system by which county registrars carry on the duties formerly carried on by under-sheriffs. Two or three days before the death of the late Mr. Patrick Hogan, he mentioned to me that, from his experience as a solicitor in very big practice for the then last four or five years, he had come to the conclusion that the system, for which he was partly responsible, of putting the responsibility for the execution of court orders into the hands of the county registrar, and not into the hands of an under-sheriff, was not working well. I should like to know from the Minister if, from his experience, or from the experience of his Department, he has any information to give to the House on that topic. I must confess myself that, originally, when that change was made, I thought it was a proper and a right change, and a change that was beneficial in the law. I am not so sure now. I do think that whoever is responsible for the execution of court orders should be a State official responsible to the Minister. I do not think that the old system of under-sheriff should be continued, but I think that the amalgamation of the two offices into the one has not worked as well as was anticipated. Too much work is put upon one man. The type of work that the county registrar has to do, in my opinion, is sufficient to occupy him his entire day, or ought to be sufficient, and he cannot give the necessary time or the necessary attention, or, might I add, the necessary sympathy that is required in connection with the execution of court orders.
There is one particular instance in which a gentleman—I shall not mention the name, he is not a county registrar, nor is he a State official—has demonstrated that it is in the interests not merely of the debtor, but of the creditor himself, that a certain wise forbearance should be exercised in the carrying out of this duty in executing court orders. He demonstrated in practice that creditors, by the exercise of that forbearance, have got paid their debts in full in cases where, if the sheriff had gone in in the ordinary way in which he would go in if he were doing his duty as an automatic court official, and had executed his writ of fi fa and made a return of “no goods,” the creditor would have got nothing. In similar cases, by the exercise of a wise discretion, by not too forcibly pressing the debtor, in numerous instances within my own personal knowledge, creditors have got the full amount of their decrees and costs in cases where, if the writ were issued automatically, they would not get a penny. The county registrar, in my view, will not be in a position to exercise that discretion or that wise forbearance. He will have his eye on his immediate superior in the Department of Justice, who will have his eye on the Comptroller and Auditor-General. It will be much easier for an official of that kind to send in his court messenger and give a return of “no goods.” He has then carried out his duty, but the creditor has got nothing. He is entirely within his rights in doing that, and, in fact, if he did not do that, it would probably be said that he was not carrying out his duty, but if he were allowed to exercise his own discretion, a discretion that would not be subject to review departmentally, or in an autocratic manner, then the collection of debts would be greatly facilitated.
There is another item here on which I should like the Minister to throw some light, an item for temporary staff in connection with registration work. It is a small item of £1,030. I take it that that item has reference to registration in connection with voters' lists. I should like to know from the Minister if I am correct in the assumption that the provision made for temporary staff in connection with registration has reference to the preparation of voters' lists. If so, I then want to ask the Minister for information as to the manner in which the Guards carry out their duties in connection with the preparation of the parliamentary and municipal registers. It may perhaps be going slightly outside the scope of the discussion on an Estimate of this kind to state, merely in passing, that I think the time has come, if it has not long since gone by, when the entire work of the preparation of voters' lists of all kinds should be a State service. The only way that I know of at the moment in which the State enters into it, is in the sort of examination, a cursory examination necessarily, that is made annually by the Guards. The right of a voter after he appears on the lists is a very valuable right, but it is one of which he may be very easily deprived. The Guards do a certain amount of work to see that the peoples' rights are preserved and that people who are on the register are there because they are entitled to be there, but there is no provision, as far as I know, for dealing adequately through the machinery of the Guards with that particular duty. I think that duty should be increased, that the Guards ought to give more careful attention to the preparation of the register, and that when it is put into the hands of the Guards, they should have adequate time to make a very detailed examination of the register. It is not possible for every voter to look after his own interests. Theoretically, of course, the answer is that every voter should see that his or her name is on the list. These registers are hung up in the Guards barracks and in branches of the post office, but they are almost inaccessible. Nobody knows where they are to be got or when they are to be got. The whole system, in my opinion, calls very urgently for recasting and amelioration.
The next point I want to make is something in the nature of a perennial point. I should like to know from the Minister what he proposes to do in connection with the retention of the official reporters in the circuit courts having regard to the passing of the recent Courts of Justice Act. These men have had a very arduous task to fulfil in the last 12 or 13 years since the passage of the original Courts of Justice Act. They have never got fair conditions of employment or pay, but they have served in that arduous task for a number of years. I want an assurance from the Minister, if possible, that none of these people will be deprived of such remuneration as they have without compensation, if their services are dispensed with or, if they are continued, that they will be continued on a whole-time basis. Arising out of this topic, the position of the Central Criminal Court emerges for consideration. Very serious cases, the most serious cases in the State are dealt with in the Central Criminal Court. One of the officials employed by the Department of Justice there in taking down the shorthand notes of evidence died as the result of overwork. There is no doubt whatever about that. I can say it from my own personal experience and from merely looking at the man fading away through overwork and worry. Efforts were made to ameliorate his position but to no avail. Now the same thing exists at the present moment. Apart altogether from the question of a particular individual or particular individuals, whether or not they are properly remunerated or entirely overworked— I realise that such an appeal would fall on deaf ears in the Department of Justice—from past experience I know, and I am speaking now in the public interest and from a point of view other than that of the particular individuals involved, a man's life may depend on whether or not the evidence has been taken down properly or accurately. I have had experience in this House even, where the reporting is on the highest possible level, where some slight errors have crept into the reports of debates by reason of the fact that the hieroglyphic for one word would be the same as that for another word. When a matter comes to be considered by the Court of Criminal Appeal, the only thing that can be looked at is the transcript of the shorthand writer's notes. I have had civil cases myself where the word "the" was put in instead of the word "a" and the whole case was practically lost on that difference. Now, realise the much greater importance that attaches to the written word in connection with a criminal matter. Here in the Dáil we give ourselves the luxury of a reporting staff that changes after a short space of time, and that is quite proper. I think it is entirely wrong that one man should be engaged in the Court of Criminal Appeal from 11 o'clock in the morning until sometimes 8 or 9 o'clock at night, and then have to transcribe his notes perhaps during the rest of the night, as happens in a serious and important case, for the benefit of the judge and the jury. That is not a proper thing in connection with the administration of justice.
I think that a system somewhat analogous to the system that exists here in this House should be employed in connection with important criminal cases, at least in the Central Criminal Court. I think that in all criminal courts—but certainly in cases involving life and death, as cases do in the Central Criminal Court—there should be relays of shorthand writers taking down the evidence. In my view, it is nothing short of a public scandal that one man is forced to spend all day taking down the evidence in shorthand; subjected to the tremendous strain that he is bound to carry on that duty in cases where the judge directs, for the convenience of the jury and witnesses, that the trial should proceed beyond 4 o'clock, sometimes until 7, 8 or 9 o'clock at night. He is bound to come again on the following day and perform the same arduous task, and perhaps in connection with one trial the same happens for five or six days or even longer. I do think that that is a reform which calls for urgent attention. It would cost very little, and it would be an advance in the administration of our criminal law.
Speaking of reforms, might I suggest to the Minister that, so far as I know, his Department administratively has done nothing in the way of having, either in or outside the Department, anything in the nature of a law reform committee. I think that is something which requires to be set up by the Minister, at least departmentally. I myself would not be satisfied—I would be very far from satisfied; I would be extremely dissatisfied—with a purely Departmental committee to deal with law reform. I hesitated for some time to refer even to the establishment of such a committee, for the reason that on to such a committee there always tends to creep every crank in the country, and if such a committee were to be set up, very great care would have to be taken in the selection of the personnel. I think there is a tendency for us to regard the law as brought over by Article 73 of the Constitution as static. At the present time, some of the laws that are being administered throughout the country, even the criminal laws, are entirely out-of-date. If the Minister will look at some of the indictments that have been preferred over the last few years in the criminal courts under the Larceny Acts, he will perhaps be a little bit surprised to find that the institution of the King was extremely useful to the Department of Justice. At the present moment, although we have, or think we have, taken away the King from our internal affairs, the King is writ large over the Larceny Act of 1916, and employed by the Minister and his solicitors in indictments in the Circuit Courts throughout the country. I think the Minister should give some attention to the question of law reform. In that respect we are lagging very seriously behind Great Britain. I handed in a question last year—I refrained from putting it on the Paper, but I propose to do it very shortly now —in connection with the matter of joint tort feasors, in connection with the law of arbitration, and in connection with the liability of husband and wife in tort. Those are matters that have been dealt with in England years ago, but here we are to a very large extent dependent on feudal law, which has its ultimate origin in the King. If the Minister and his Government have taken the King out of our internal affairs, they ought to take him out of our statutes.
I notice that the Minister has provided in the Estimate the sum of £100 for counsels' fees in connection with the drafting of rules of court. It is a matter of great gratification to me to know that some of my colleagues will pocket that money sometime. But that particular item appeared in last year's Estimates, too, to precisely the same extent, and, so far as I can see, this sum of £100 for counsels' fees is going to continue in the estimates for the Department of Justice in sæcula sæculorum, unless the Minister rouses himself and decides some time or other that counsel will be employed to do something which is 13, or at any rate ten years overdue—the consolidation of the rules of the High Court. I should like to know if the Minister or his Department has the remotest idea or hope of doing anything in connection with the consolidation of the rules of court during the course of the next 12 months, or if the insertion of this £100 which appeared in last year's Estimates also, has merely the value of a pious hope as it had last year.
There is one matter of detail that I want to press upon the Minister for his earnest consideration. I think I raised it last year with the then Attorney-General. Those of us who are engaged on work in connection with negligence accidents and traffic accidents of one kind or another have, in every case, come across police reports on the accident, and that performance has now become little better than a farce. We all have our little document briefed to us, headed "Abstract of Occurrence by the Gárda Síochána." That particular abstract of the occurrence is signed by a guard or a superintendent, and purports to give an account of what that member of the Guards saw after the accident had occurred. In practically every case it gives precisely no information as to what occurred. Then we have to go through the farce on both sides —for plaintiff and defendant—of issuing a subpoena to the guard to attend to give evidence. The guard solemnly attends both consultations, of plaintiff and defendant, and solemnly assures both plaintiff and defendant that he is debarred by his regulations from telling what is in his report or what the defendant said to him after the accident until the judge orders him to do so. But both the plaintiff and the defendant have a very shrewd idea as to what has taken place and as to what is in those reports. The guard gets solemnly and smartly into the witness box, and when asked “Did the defendant make a statement to you after the accident,” says: “My lord, have I your direction to disclose this.” Well, now it is about time that that farce stopped.
The police investigate an accident and their evidence is of vital concern in the interests of truth in every case. I say the Guards take up a strictly impartial attitude in accident cases. Their evidence ought to be available in the interests of truth and accuracy to both sides in the case, and to the court. Statements made by parties to the police purporting to give an account of an occurrence after the accident ought to be at the disposal of all interested parties equally. Now, I think that the Minister ought, at this stage, to put an end to the regulation that prevents a guard from giving his evidence until the judge orders it. It is the purest formality for the judge to give an order. Until quite recently it was really a matter of very great doubt as to how far those statements could be used in evidence in court. That matter has been more or less settled now, and we ought to have the position that all sides should have freely at their disposal the observations of the Guards taken after the occurrence, and statements made by the parties involved to the police, immediately after the occurrence, not merely in the interests of a particular litigant, but in the interests of the ascertainment of the truth of the occurrence and the accuracy of people's recollections in the matter.
I saw in the papers during the last few weeks a matter which certainly surprised me. I am open to correction if I am wrong in the interpretation that I put upon it. During the hearing of a criminal case in Cork Circuit Court involving, I think, a criminal charge against one of the officials of the Cork Circuit Court, the jury in the case had to retire each evening. That is a rather normal occurrence in the circuit courts, but to my astonishment I saw that the jury were solemnly told that they would not be allowed to go to their homes after the conclusion of the first day's hearing, or at the conclusion of any other day's hearing, unless they took an oath of secrecy. I know of no oath of secrecy provided by the law of this country, but I do know that it is the law of this country that unnecessary oaths ought not to be taken. A Statutory Declaration Act was passed for the purpose of preventing unnecessary oaths from being administered, but here we have—by whom I do not know—a so-called oath of secrecy manufactured ad hoc for a Cork jury. Now, I want to know who manufactured this oath of secrecy. In my opinion it is profanity and nothing else, and I think the Minister should take steps to see that it will not occur again.
The oaths to be taken by jurymen and by witnesses are provided by the law of this State, and nobody has the right, except the Oireachtas, to make law for this State. No judge has the right to make it, and no official has the right to make it. In the statutes passed by the Oireachtas we provide the various oaths that are to be taken by jurymen. Where did this oath of secrecy come from, and out of whose ingenious brain did it emanate? Oaths are sacred things, and jurymen ought not to be made take unnecessary oaths. They were entitled to go to their homes that night without having administered to them this oath that has no statutory existence, and that in my view tended to bring the jurymen's oath into disrespect. I personally take a very serious view of that performance. Personally, it shocked me very gravely. I want a definite assurance from the Minister that, so far as he and his Department can control it, such a thing will not happen again. We have to have regard in this country for the solemnity and sanctity of an oath. That sort of performance brings into disrepute the sanctity of an oath. In the administration of justice, nobody is entitled to manufacture out of his head an oath of that kind.
I am not sure whether it was in the course of the last 12 months that an incident occurred in court where one of the officers of the Gárda Síochána gave his evidence at the Central Criminal Court in Green Street in Irish. The only reason for his doing so was because he would get an extra piece of remuneration for giving his evidence in Irish. The judge knew some Irish, but was more conversant with the language of the Sassenach. The jury knew no Irish, and why it should be necessary in those circumstances that this unfortunate officer, in order to retain some paltry allowance that he gets for giving evidence in Irish in the Gaeltacht, should go through the solemn farce of giving his evidence in Irish at Green Street, thereby causing additional inconvenience and expense as well as adding to the length of time that the trial occupied, passes my comprehension. I would like to be assured that such a farcical performance will not be repeated. It again brings the administration of justice into disrepute and brings the Irish language into disrepute.
I raised last year the question of the transfer of cases from the country to the Central Criminal Court. That is a matter largely for the Attorney-General, but the Minister is responsible for juries. The City of Dublin jurors are subjected to a heavy strain. They have to sit constantly in Green Street for the Dublin Circuit Courts which, I think, are sitting in their criminal jurisdiction throughout the year without a break except when the Central Criminal Court is sitting. The Circuit Court and Central Criminal Court cases impose a very great drain on the time of the members of the business community in Dublin who have to give jury service. They have also to attend civil cases in the High Court as well as civil cases in the Circuit Courts. I think the Minister should see that, so far as he is concerned, the officers for whom he has responsibility, the officers of the Gárda Síochána, will not be putting up to the Attorney-General demands for the change of venue for cases from the country to the city. The principle upon which I always acted when I had the misfortune to have had the responsibility for dealing with those matters was that if the country people themselves would not deal with their own local criminals, well then they could have a present of them so far as I was concerned. They ought not to be throwing the responsibility on to the jurymen of the City of Dublin.
There is a matter which arises out of that consideration—the number of times that the criminal courts of this country are sitting, particularly in the City of Dublin. I may be wrong, because I am speaking only from impression, but I have a most definite impression that we seem always to have in the City of Dublin some sort of Criminal Court sitting. We have the Circuit Court sitting practically constantly, only interrupted, as I have already said, for the sittings of the Central Criminal Court. My recollection of the days before the Treaty was that we had a very odd sitting of the Recorders' Court and a spring assizes and a winter assizes at which there was practically no work done. I should like to know from the Minister have we, since the establishment of this country as an independent State, advanced criminally? Has the country increased in its criminal activities? I know from my own experience the types of cases heard in Green Street of which the public know nothing. Certainly, the ordinary public would be shocked at the variety and extent of the crimes dealt with in the Circuit Court and the Central Criminal Court in the City of Dublin. I take it that the Department of Justice have statistics of these matters. Have they, as the result of the compilation of these statistics, particularly in sexual crimes, yet come to any conclusion, or are they in a position to draw any conclusion from these statistics? It is a matter of some public importance and I think we ought to get some light and leading from the Minister.
We have been hearing recently of the avalanche that is going to descend on the motoring community. The Minister's officers are apparently preparing by-laws dealing with traffic. I should like to know whether this House will have an opportunity of discussing these by-laws before they come into operation. These by-laws affect the liberties, the liberty of action at all events, of a considerable section of the community. They affect the business life of the community. I should like to know from the Minister what consideration has been given to such rights. I feel that these by-laws, whether good or bad—at the moment I express no opinion on them, because I have had no opportunity of considering them, as they were only partially published in the newspapers—will be issued from one point of view alone— from the point of view of the police. I should like to get an assurance from the Minister that that impression is a wrong impression. I should like to get an assurance from the Minister that when the by-laws are brought into operation they will be administered with considerable forbearance by the Gárda for some time after they come into operation, and that they will not be used to chivy motorists around the place and to provide a largely increased revenue for some sort of fine fund, or one of those dark corridors down which revenue pours into the coffers of the Minister for Finance via the Department of Justice.
We are entitled, I think, to have these by-laws very carefully considered from other aspects than those of the police. They will look at the matter, naturally enough, entirely from the point of view of the job the Gárda will have to do in administering these by-laws. But the matter must, in my view, be considered from a very much wider and broader point of view. The by-laws must be considered in the light of the situation as it exists in the country, particularly in the City of Dublin. They must be considered in the light of the interests of the business people, who are entitled to have their customers brought as near to their doors as possible. But, above all, I want an assurance from the Minister that these by-laws, if and when they come into force, will be administered in a spirit of forbearance and good humour.
These matters, I think, cover most of the points I had to deal with. I had intended to refer to the question of the education of the police. That is a matter that would cover a very wide field and we shall leave that for another day.
