Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Thursday, 16 Mar 1939

Vol. 74 No. 16

In Committee on Finance. - Vote 38—Circuit Court.

Mr. Ruttledge

I move:—

Go ndeontar suim ná raghaidh thar £33,868 chun slánuithe na suime is gá chun íoctha an Mhuirir a thiocfaidh chun bheith iníoctha i rith na bliana dar críoch an 31adh lá de Mhárta, 1940, chun Tuarastail agus Liúntaisí agus Costaisí Oifigeach Cúirte Cuarda Leas-Bhreithiún gCuarda agus Udarásanna Clárathachta Aitiúla áirithe, Costaisí Taistil Breithiún gCuarda agus costaisí Athfhéachainte Liostaí Vótálaithe agus Coisteoirí (Uimh. 27 de 1926, etc.).

That a sum not exceeding £33,868 be granted to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1940, for the Salaries, Allowances and Expenses of Circuit Court Officers, Deputy Circuit Judges, and certain Local Registering Authorities, the Travelling Expenses of Circuit Judges, and the expenses of Revision of Voters and Jurors Lists (No. 27 of 1926, etc.).

General MacEoin

When the Courts of Justice Bill was going through this House, the question of the courts' stenographers arose and in reply to a question by me, the Minister promised that those courts' stenographers would be re-employed or would get compensation. I regret to say that that promise has not been redeemed and that a very grave injustice has been inflicted upon these officials. Under the previous Courts of Justice Act, as you are aware, appeals were heard upon stenographers' notes and a number of courts' stenographers were appointed all over the country. They were in some cases journalists and in other cases persons who had held commercial positions but they left, in a great number of cases, permanent employment to take up these particular appointments. They had every reason to believe that their appointments as court stenographers were permanent. Under the recent Court of Justice Act that system has been done away with, except in employers' liability actions, and the stenographers found themselves thrown out of employment in a number of cases. I can speak of one case in particular, a court stenographer for County Longford and that area, who was an Old I.R.A. officer, and had employment as a journalist on the Longford Leader, and as a correspondent for a number of papers, including some in Great Britain. He gave up all these appointments to become a court stenographer. He is a married man with a wife and family. I want an assurance from the Minister that employment will be found for such people. The Act which made the change went through without opposition, and these men are left on the high road as, to all intents and purposes, they have no chance of regaining their former employment. I know that representations have been made by other people. I hope the Minister will see that no hardship is imposed upon those who were servants of the State, and of the courts, and who, through no fault of their own, have been placed at a disadvantage. I do not know whether court messenger charges come under this Vote.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I do not think so. They would come under Law Charges.

General MacEoin

I ask the Minister to see to it that the cases of the men I referred to get fair consideration. The particular case I have in mind is a very serious one.

Mr. Moran

Since the change over to the new system the court stenographers are very much missed in the Circuit Courts, both by the judges and the practitioners, and there have been several requests—I do not know if they went to the Minister—to bring back these stenographers in ordinary civil bill cases, so that a note of the evidence will be available, not only for the interested practitioners but for the High Court on the hearing of appeals. In that way there would be an opportunity of knowing the views of the judges in the Circuit Courts. We are all agreed that appeals by way of re-hearing are the best form of appeal. It has been pointed out by Circuit judges on several occasions during the last 12 months that the reason for their judgments was not before the Court of Appeal; that the angle from which they looked at cases, or the reason for their judgments were not available when the cases went to the higher courts. It would also be very useful to have the stenographers so that litigants and practitioners would have available for the appeals the various points that were made. In connection with costs in the Circuit Courts, I should like to point out that no scale whatever is provided by the rules for cases between £100 and £300. Once the amount of the decree comes to £100 or over, the costs are taxed on the High Court scale. There is no scale for sums up to £120, £130 or £200. The one scale applies up to £300. That is something that should be looked into.

The Minister would be well advised after the try-out that has been given the new rules, to go back again to many of the rules that appertained to the old county courts. Many people are now of opinion that the elaborate pleadings in the Circuit Courts are the cause of the huge increase in the cost of litigation in these courts. In cases before the old county courts, where there was no question of pleadings, but merely the civil bill and, perhaps, a notice asking for particulars, justice was done to everybody, and there were not those charges, particularly counsel's fees, that are incurred in settling pleadings before the Circuit Court at present. If the benefits of these courts are to be made available to the ordinary poor man, and if we are to have the best system of courts available for everybody some drastic changes will have to be made with regard to costs in Circuit Courts. I suggest that in cases up to £100 all pleadings should be abolished in Circuit Courts. That is a matter that calls for immediate investigation.

Mr. Ruttledge

I do not think Deputy MacEoin is exactly correct in saying that I made some promises I did not carry out. When the Courts of Justice Act was going through the Dáil in 1936, it was foreseen, and I think pointed out clearly in the debate, that those court stenographers would lose their positions, certainly a number of them. We did undertake that they were to get one year's salary, or something like that, if they were not employed. What we did undertake was, that we would try, as far as possible, to fit them into positions that might arise, and that they might be employed in the courts in future. Up to the end of 1938, and long after Part IV of the Act of 1936 was brought into operation, those we could not place we paid at the rate of £2 a week. We tried to let them down as lightly as we could, and to use them on every opportunity we got in workmen's compensation cases or criminal cases. We have been trying to employ them, or to provide employment for them there, so as to make their position as easy as we could. Their positions as court stenographers were without any security, and while saying that, we recognise the hardship that could be imposed on these people by being put out of positions, because it was decided by the Legislature to change the system in the courts. I know the case that Deputy MacEoin has in mind, and I agree that it is a hard case.

I agree that it is a hard case and my Department has every sympathy with it. If anything arises by which that man can be provided with employment it will be done. The man has my sympathy and the sympathy of the Department, and we are anxious to deal with the case.

I do not agree with Deputy Moran that we should have stenographers going back to the Circuit Courts taking notes simply for the purpose of enabling somebody in the High Court to get up and cross-examine a witness as to what he said in the Circuit Court. That is going to result in another increase in costs. It means that the solicitor engaged on one side or another is going to get a transcript of the evidence and get somebody in the office to copy it and brief it to his counsel. You have a re-hearing on appeal and a witness can be reminded in the High Court as to what he said in the Circuit Court if he tries to change the case he made at the Circuit Court.

General MacEoin

I am glad that the Minister agrees with me in the particular case I have mentioned. The case is a hard one and might I appeal to the Minister to give it his immediate attention and to do what he can in the matter?

Mr. Ruttledge

My Department has every sympathy with that case.

Vote 38 put and agreed to.