Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 3 Jul 1946

Vol. 102 No. 2

Courts of Justice (District Court) Bill, 1946—Second Stage.

Minister for Justice (Mr. Boland)

I move that the Bill be now read a Second Time. This Bill has four main objects. The first is to permit of a reorganisation of the Dublin Metropolitan District Court which, it is hoped and expected, will contribute to the more convenient despatch of the business of that court. The second is to increase the maximum number of district justices from the present limit of 33 to 40. It is hoped by that means that we may be able to get rid of the expedient of having temporary district justices. The third is to abolish the office of assistant justice, which was created under the Courts of Justice Act, 1928. Deputies are aware that for a number of years there have been in the city three assistant district justices who did the same work as the permanent justices, but they were paid less; they were permanent and pensionable, but they were paid less. They were to be available for work down the country, but they were kept in Dublin because of the pressure of work. That will be abolished. The fourth is to alter the law as regards the tenure of office of the district justices.

I think Deputies are aware of the unsatisfactory position in Dublin for a number of years. On the Estimate the question has been pretty fully ventilated and some months ago I expressed the hope that I would be able to bring in legislation to deal with the position in Dublin in respect of the matters I have mentioned. The fact is that the system and organisation which was satisfactory enough 20 years ago, when the city was much smaller, will not work now. There were three district justices in 1924, including the senior justice. They were permanently assigned to Dublin. There were also three assistant district justices, who were whole-time. Now we have three justices, including the senior justice, three assistant justice, and two temporary justices, making a total establishment of eight. The clerical staff has increased from 12 in 1924 to 20. There was only one probation officer in 1924 and now there are seven.

Deputies will have some idea of the reason for the increase in the business of the court. There was a great increase in the criminal business, due to the emergency conditions. There were offences which would not be there but for the emergency—rationing and other similar offences. These increased the work of the courts. There was also the fact that the city has grown enormously. The population has increased considerably and areas that were rural a few years ago are now included in the city. Consequently, there is a need for a greater number of justices. I expect also, when we give effect to Part III of the Rent Restrictions Act, passed recently, it will take up a large amount of the time of one justice, who will deal with tenement dwellers.

On the whole, it seems reasonably clear that it will not be possible for some considerable time to come to operate the Dublin Metropolitan District Court to the satisfaction of all parties concerned with less than six permanent justices. The Department have been satisfied on this score for a long time past, but, while the emergency lasted, it was considered inopportune to introduce a comprehensive scheme of reorganisation. We are doing that now.

Perhaps the most serious defect of the present system is that it imposes on the senior justice a burden which, in the new and altered circumstances, is too much for one man. As I have explained, the original organisation of the Dublin Metropolitan District Court provided for a senior justice and two other justices. This idea was sound enough at a time when the senior justice and his two colleagues were able to overtake the work. It was not then too much to expect that the senior justice could successfully exercise general control over the entire work of the district. When, however, it becomes a question of arranging for the distribution of business amongst seven or eight other justices and arranging for their sittings and, in addition, discharging the duties of chairman of the rules committee, as well as having some responsibilities in connection with a staff of close on 30, it ceases to be a practical proposition for one man to shoulder all these burdens and, on top of them, to discharge the ordinary function of the district justice.

The Bill proposes, as the remedy for the existing unsatisfactory position, that there should be three divisions in the Dublin metropolitan district. That is provided for in Section 5. These divisions will not be on a territorial basis. They will be divisions of the business of the court and the business to be transacted in each division will be settled by the Minister for Justice, who is given, by Section 10 of the Bill, the power to distribute the business amongst the three divisions. No scheme of distribution has yet been settled; this will be a matter for discussion with the justices concerned.

Each division will consist of a principal justice and such number of other justices as the Minister for Justice may, from time to time, determine. That is provided for in Section 5 (2). It is contemplated that in practice each division will have two justices, a principal justice and an ordinary justice, permanently assigned to it. In addition, such assistance as may from time to time be necessary may be allocated by the Minister for Justice to any division. The principal justice and ordinary justices of divisions will be nominated by the Minister for Justice from among the justices for the time being assigned to Dublin. That is provided for in Sections 6 (1) (a) and 7 (a). Principal justices will not be transferable from one division to another, except with their consent. Ordinary justices of divisions will, however, be so transferable. Sub-section (3) of Section 6 provides that the present senior justice must be nominated a principal justice of one of the divisions.

It will be the duty of a principal justice to arrange for the distribution of the business of his division amongst the justices of the division. Moreover, he may have delegated to him by the Minister powers in relation to the determination of the classes of business to be transacted at each appointed place and the days and hours at which such classes of business will be transacted. The senior justice exercises very similar powers at present as regards all the business of the Dublin metropolitan district, under Section 5 of the Court Officers (Amendment) Act, 1937, which is now being repealed. The Minister for Justice may exercise the powers referred to and, in addition, possesses the exclusive power to appoint the places in the Dublin metropolitan division for the transaction of the business of each division. That is provided for in Section 11. As regards the latter point, it is clearly necessary that there should be some central authority responsible for the allocation of the available courthouse accommodation amongst the separate divisions.

The salaries of Dublin metropolitan justices are provided for in Section 8. Each principal justice will have £1,200 a year, the same salary as the present senior justice, and the ordinary justices of divisions permanently assigned to Dublin will receive £1,100 a year, which also is the salary of the present ordinary justices in Dublin. The proposed change in the law as regards the senior justiceship makes an amendment of the law necessary as regards the chairmanship of the district court rules committee, and suitable provision in this regard is made in Section 13.

Coming now to the provisions of Part III of the Bill, I think I should touch first upon the proposal in Section 15 for an increase in the number of justices, because the explanation of this proposal is to be found partly in the proposals as regards the Dublin Metropolitan District Court, which I have just been discussing. Under Section 68 of the Courts of Justice Act, 1924, the number of justices is at present limited to 33. Of this number three are at present permanently assigned to Dublin, the remaining 30 being each assigned to a separate district. As I have explained, it is now proposed to have six justices permanently assigned to Dublin. This means an increase of three in the over-all number of justices.

Under the Courts of Justice Act, 1928, not more than four assistant justices may be appointed. These are whole-time, pensionable appointments, but their salaries are lower than the salaries of justices. Originally, the salary of an assistant justice was £800. Under the Courts of Justice Act, 1936, that was raised to £900 after five years' service, and £950 after a further five years. At present there are three assistant justices, as I have mentioned, and they have been for several years past constantly employed in Dublin. There is no necessity to keep these on any longer. We are putting all the justices on the same footing as full justices. The proposal is then, as soon as the Bill is law and there is authority for increasing the number of justices, to appoint the three present assistant justices to be justices in Dublin. There may be some question that they may be sent somewhere else. I propose that the three who have been in Dublin all along and who could have been appointed as full justices when there were vacancies some time ago and elected to remain in Dublin, will be appointed, when these appointments are made, to Dublin, with the salary they have. There might have been some fear that that would not be done.

Mr. Dillon

Fair enough.

Mr. Boland

The Bill proposes in effect that the present power to appoint a maximum of four assistant justices should be replaced by a power to appoint a maximum of four justices. Instead of their being called assistants, they will be now full justices, but will be movable; they will be available to be sent to relieve justices absent owing to illness or on holidays in future. They will not be appointed to any particular district but will be available from time to time to serve in any district in which their services will be required.

Mr. Dillon

What will they do when they are not relieving permanent justices somewhere else?

Mr. Boland

Since I have been Minister, that is for seven years, we have had more than four temporary justices all the time and I think we may take it that there will be work for them. If not, when a vacancy occurs, we will not fill it.

Mr. Dillon

And you could always turn them on to Dublin.

Mr. Boland

Yes, and if a time comes when there are too many justices and not so much work, if a vacancy should occur, it need not be filled. I would suggest some way like that. I have agreed, and every Deputy has agreed, that it is not desirable to have temporary justices. I do not know whether or not this Bill will remove the need for that to some extent but I hope it will have that effect. I agreed with the point made here that it was not a desirable practice.

In regard to the age of retirement of justices, the present retiring age of a district justice is 65, except in Dublin and Cork, and there is power to extend the age to 70 in the Gaeltacht area. I am proposing, while safeguarding the position of existing justices who are entitled to retire at 70, that the age should be the same for the whole country, that is, 65. I am satisfied that the work in the District Court in Dublin is of such an onerous nature that a man at 70 years of age is really too old for it and that 65 ought to be the retiring age.

Mr. Dillon

It is too low.

Mr. Boland

Well, it is 65 all over the country.

Mr. Dillon

You ought to make it 70 all over the country. It is ridiculous to be scrapping men at 65.

Mr. Boland

It is my opinion that 70 is too old, especially for Dublin, where the work is very, very severe. In regard to tenure of office, we are providing in Section 19 of the Bill that the tenure of office of a district justice should be the same as that of a High Court judge, that is, that they will be removable only by resolution of both Houses. That is in substitution for the present rule under which a district justice is removable by the Government on report of a committee consisting of the Chief Justice, the President of the High Court and the Attorney-General. But, in Section 20, the Minister for Justice is given power to request the Chief Justice to appoint a judge to make inquiry into the conduct or health of any particular justice. That is a very good idea. At present the only power to do that would be the power to appoint a tribunal of inquiry. We think that in a matter of inquiry into something about a district justice, the new arrangement is better.

Mr. Cosgrave

Have not the Chief Justice and the Attorney-General power at the moment?

Mr. Boland

No. Their power is to investigate a complaint sent to the Minister for Justice and to report and, if they report that the conduct of a justice was such as to merit dismissal or that his health was such as to render him incapable, the report will be considered by the Government, but they have no right or power to inquire into the conduct of any district justice and I am asking for that right in Section 20. I think it will be found very useful.

Mr. Dillon

You should make it three judges instead of one.

Mr. Boland

I would not think so. A High Court judge ought to be enough and he can conduct the matter in camera if he wishes. The court will not dismiss; they can only make a recommendation. I think one is sufficient. In any case we can hear the Deputy on it afterwards.

Mr. Dillon

Do not forget Marshall Hall.

Mr. Boland

Section 18 is to enable a justice to retire before his time if his health was not quite so bad as would enable him to get a doctor's certificate that he was unfit but nevertheless was such that he ought to go and that the Government was satisfied that it would be better if he did retire. The proposal here is to enable him to retire on appropriate pension. That power does not exist already. We are asking for it here. There is another matter that has arisen recently. There is some doubt about the position when there is an appeal from the District Court to the Circuit Court as to which court should issue the warrant. There has been a dispute in Dublin as to whether it should be the District Court or the Circuit Court. We are making it definite, in Section 22, that it should be the District Court.

Mr. Dillon

The District Court?

Mr. Boland

Yes; that when it is decided that a warrant has to be issued, that it will be issued by the court in which it originated, that is the District Court. We are putting that beyond doubt in the Bill.

Mr. Cosgrave

It may not be generally realised how much work district justices get through and the service they perform not merely on the criminal side of the law but, more particularly, on the civil side of the law. They perform effectively and cheaply functions which enable poor litigants or, in the case of small claims, rich and poor litigants, to have their cases decided under a cheap code, a code which has fixed law charges and under which cases can be expeditiously and cheaply determined. For that reason it is right that the particular status of the District Court should be acknowledged and that Deputies and the general public should realise that district justices and the District Courts perform a very useful function which could not ordinarily be performed by any other court and which enables matters to be determined more quickly than they could be if they had to await Circuit Court jurisdiction. Therefore, it is only right that their status should be acknowledged and their position in the framework of the Judiciary should be formally established.

The objection I have to certain provisions of this Bill is the implied suggestion that the district justices are unable to regulate their own affairs. I admit it is necessary—in fact it should have been done earlier, but owing to the emergency and the conditions prevailing it was not possible for the Minister or the Government to arrive at a decision concerning the permanent nature of the District Courts so far as, Dublin is concerned—that the district justices should be free to decide their own procedure and practice in so far as the arrangement of business and so on is concerned. Under this Bill, the Government has power to assign particular work to a particular justice. That is undesirable from many points of view. First, that a justice may be appointed to the position of district justice and immediately he may find himself dealing with cases where a State Department is prosecuting, and in which, say, emergency regulations have been contravened. He is put in the position that he has to decide the particular circumstance between his employers on the one hand and the citizen on the other. While, in the normal way, once a justice is appointed, he is independent and free in the exercise of his functions, and while that generally will be so under the Bill, the objection has been voiced here before, and must be voiced again, that temporary district justices should not deal with matters in which the State is a party. These justices are dependent on the goodwill of the Minister for their reappointment, and in recent years, in many cases of breaches of emergency regulations, these justices felt that, in order to make secure their reappointments, they should secure convictions in as many cases as possible.

Under this Bill, we are to have three divisions in Dublin and, according to the Minister, there will be one principal justice and one ordinary justice for these divisions. The principal justice will have under his control a justice. I think it extraordinary that it should be necessary to have a principal justice in charge of an ordinary justice. So far as the regulation of business is concerned, it is desirable that it should be left, if not to the senior justice, to a committee, and, under the provisions of the Bill, it would be better to have that business arranged by the three principal justices than by the Minister or by the Department.

Mr. Dillon

Can the Deputy say if it is proposed to divide the city into three districts and to have two justices in each district?

Mr. Cosgrave

That is what I understood the Minister to say.

Mr. Boland

There will be three divisions of the work. They will not be territorial divisions. The ordinary criminal work would be one, the civil work another, and children's work the third. In addition, probably these rent cases will also be dealt with. There will be a chief in charge of each. Another point to be remembered is that once a senior justice is appointed to one of these divisions, he cannot be transferred from it without his consent.

Mr. Cosgrave

With regard to the age of retirement in Section 14, I feel that it should be extended to 70 years. I know that provision for retirement at the age of 65 is made in the earlier Acts, but I do not know why that provision was made. If a judge of the Supreme Court, High Court or Circuit Court is competent to transact business up to 70 years of age—in fact, it was extended to 72 years a few years ago— I do not see why a district justice should be incompetent to transact business at 65. I suggest that the Minister should raise the age.

Suggestions are very often made that a district justice, after retirement, becomes unable to transact further business because of his work, but I think it is a bad precedent and one which implies that a person holding the office of district justice who may be quite competent to continue in practice after his retirement at 65, merely because he fills the office of district justice is not competent to transact the business of that office. If a judge of the Supreme Court, the High Court or the Circuit Court who, in the normal way, must secure a far wider degree of respect for law and order can continue to 70 years of age, there is no reason why a district justice should be expected to retire at 65.

The Minister has said that he proposes to safeguard the position of existing justices. As I understand it, there are three temporary assistant justices in Dublin at the moment and these will probably be appointed to the three positions.

Mr. Boland

They are not temporary —they are permanent assistants.

Mr. Cosgrave

In addition, there is a justice in a temporary position who has been in Dublin for a considerable time. I suggest that any person whom it is proposed to leave in Dublin should get the benefit of the age provision. Even if the age is left at 65, such a person should get the benefit of the extended period.

Section 20 is an objectionable section. The section in the 1936 Act with regard to complaints is objectionable, but much more so is the suggestion that a judge appointed by the Chief Justice should be entitled to investigate the condition of health, either physical or mental, of a justice, or to inquire into the conduct, whether in the execution of his office or otherwise, of a justice. The section gives the judge appointed very wide powers, but there is no provision compelling the judge to allow the justice to make representations, or to give medical evidence on his own behalf. It is solely within the discretion of the judge to decide what the condition of the justice is.

If as Section 19 says, justices are to hold office by the same tenure as the judges of the Supreme Court and High Court, a justice should be just as free in every sense in the matter of his capacity. A judge has entire freedom in relation to the exercise of his functions and holds office subject to the Constitution. He may be removed only under Article 35, sub-paragraph 4, Section 1, which says that a judge of the Supreme Court or High Court shall not be removed from office except for stated misbehaviour or incapacity, and then only upon resolutions passed by Dáil Éireann and by Seanad Éireann calling for his removal.

It would be undesirable that that provision should be invoked, except in very extreme cases. The provision gives judges a safeguard and makes them independent in the exercise of their functions in that it ensures that a judge will not be removed except for stated reasons and only after resolutions have been passed. It cannot be said that Section 19, coupled with Section 20, gives a justice of the District Court the same independence nor can it be said, in the light of these sections, that he holds office on the same tenure as a judge of the High Court, and I suggest that that section, if it is not deleted, should be drastically amended.

Mr. Dillon

Deputy Cosgrave will agree that this Bill is generally designed to raise the status of district justices. In so far as it tends to do that, I welcome it as a most admirable step in the right direction, because, in my humble opinion, the district justice, in practice, is one of the most important justices we have. He is the only judge to whom one can have access without going bankrupt. To litigate in the Supreme Court or the High Court is a rich man's occupation, but the poorest man in the country can make his way into the local district court and get his grievance heard and a remedy provided at no expense at all, if he is not in a position to put up the money.

I think that is very widely recognised amongst the people, and genuinely appreciated and valued by them. Is it, therefore, appropriate on this occasion to inquire whether the Minister has considered the advisability of extending the jurisdiction of the courts? If I want to sue my neighbour for £25 in rural Ireland with trivial expense, we can bring our dispute before the district justice and get it determined in the vast majority of cases to the satisfaction of all concerned. If a man owes £26, the proceedings must be removed, I think, to the Circuit Court, and by the time the debt is realised, and the dispute resolved, the litigants have spent anything from £30 to £50, so that it would have paid them very much better not to have gone to law at all.

Mr. O'Connor

That is extraordinary.

Mr. Dillon

That might be so in the City of Dublin, but the Deputy should remember that a 2d. tram will bring litigants to court in Dublin. If they were living seven miles from the court in rural Ireland—remember that circuit courts do not come to every town —they might have 15 miles to travel, and each of them might bring six witnesses. If there is acrimonious litigation it is not an uncommon thing to bring the blind, the lame and the halt. I think the Deputy would be astonished how costs mount up in rural areas. I am a member of the legal profession, although I have never practised. I have lived all my life in rural Ireland, and I have wide experience of giving credit as a merchant. I have long experience and training, both as a farmer and as a merchant, in rural Ireland, and I cannot think of any valid objection to the raising of the jurisdiction of the District Courts. I would not have the slightest objection in remitting to the jurisdiction of any district justice we have had in our area, since the institution of the State, any dispute of mine. I think I can say with perfect truth that I would be content to have any matter which would be measured in money determined by district justices, of whom we have had several in the area in which I live. I agree that when you come to certain types of criminal offence they are invested with a jury and with the panoply of the higher courts. That is not only desirable but necessary.

Is not this an appropriate time to draw the attention of this House to another astonishing state of affairs? I can sue my neighbour to-day in the District Courts for £24 19s. 11d. If a neighbour's hen breaks through my fence, and becomes guilty of habitual trespass on my property, I cannot go to the District Courts to get my neighbour restrained from permitting his or her hen to come on my property. I must institute proceedings in the Circuit Court, and bring witnesses there. The defendant will also being his or her witnesses to court. We will have two solicitors and two gentlemen with wigs and gowns, all on the head of the hen.

Mr. Allen

A question of title.

Mr. Dillon

A question of title arises. If my claim to the property on which the hen trespassed is challenged, that raises a question of title. It must go to the Circuit Court, because the district justice has no jurisdiction on matters of title. All that is on the head of a solitary hen. We have two solicitors, and two barristers-at-law, because the Circuit Court judge will not hear cases in our circuit without them. I cannot speak for other places. There are witnesses on both sides to testify how and when the hen paraded.

Mr. Allen

And a couple of engineers.

Mr. Dillon

Yes, engineers and quite likely maps, and not infrequently an expedition by the Circuit Court judge to the scene where the hen trespassed. People may laugh and say that it would be an act of supererogation on the part of the judge to go to see where the hen trespassed, but it is very necessary in order to avoid feuds and family quarrels. It is not only necessary but to do justice and to induce the parties to believe that they have had justice. There ought to be some means of defining, at least, the limited sphere of title matters on which district justices can give judgment. Speaking with the authority and experience to which I have already referred, I can see no valid objection to such procedure, bearing in mind that from every such decision there is an appeal to the Circuit Court, if it is felt that anything has gone wrong.

The point made by Deputy Cosgrave in regard to the powers conferred upon one judge, under Section 20, to conduct an inquisition into the state of health or conduct of a district justice is very forcible and strong. At first glance it seems to me that if three judges were substituted for one, any objection that the clause contain would be removed. Having heard Deputy Cosgrave I think that section should be reconsidered. I doubt if the advantages it confers at all outweigh the evil that will follow from a qualification, which it unquestionably is, of the status which the Bill in another section specifically seeks to confer on district justices. The purpose of the section conferring the new status on a district justice is to exalt that status. There, I think the Minister is perfectly right. Strangely enough, that is the kind of queer nonsensical thing he is peculiarly capable of doing. I think he will make a mistake, unless he gives much more substantial reasons than he has given so far, if he does not consent to Deputy Cosgrave's proposal to withdraw this provision. Here, I am as much out of my depth about the administration of justice in the City of Dublin as my friend in the Fianna Fáil Party is about the administration of justice in remote parts of rural Ireland. I have a cousin who was a Chief Magistrate of London for some time. He often told me of the advantage they experienced there in dividing the city into districts rather than dividing jurisdiction by means of subject matter. The reasons he adduced in respect of London may not apply to Dublin. I do not know. But he told me that when he was sitting in a place like Whitechapel after a time he became accustomed to the class of crime common in that area. Not only that, but what might sound very shocking to one who did not know that area, to an experienced magistrate who understood the way the people lived it was not so very shocking at all.

Deputies know that the police court system in England is somewhat different from the system we have here. The police court in England is a place where family quarrels are brought and aired. The ordinary people can come in and make their complaints personally. The police magistrate will chat informally with the aggrieved persons and help them out. I was told in that connection that it is absolutely necessary that one should know the way of life of the people in the area over which one exercises judicial control. Otherwise, you would be quite at sea. A woman may come in and state her problem, expecting you to understand it through the simple phrases that she uses; if you do not know a good deal of the background by experience, you are completely at sea and so, from the word "go," some of the confidence which you could command is lost. If the aggrieved parties see at once that, when they describe their difficulties, you understand them and are able to take an intelligent interest in them, half the battle is won.

When you come to a district like Vine Street it is quite another cup of tea. There you have suave and charming gentlemen, venerable old figures, being arraigned before you, who are well-known confidence tricksters. Most of the confidence tricksters who turn up, if they have beards, they are Catholic priests and if they have no beards they are Protestant pastors. You have naturally to discount their ecclesiastical attire; but if you do not understand that and know that you must discount that, you are at a loss when the Reverend Mr. Lester or the Reverend Father Maguire comes before you for having stolen a lady's handbag and you have to strain your knowledge to its utmost to discover that his name is Abraham Isaacstein and his normal place of residence Lime House and that his success in his profession is due to his pleasing exterior. I do not know if that exists in Dublin to quite the same extent. I think it would be better, however, to divide Dublin into areas and to have three divisions in the city instead of having a senior and several junior justices. In those divisions you should have a police magistrate responsible for the administration of civil and criminal justice. I do not know if that would be a better system, but I think the people would have much more confidence in justices of that character with whose person and conduct they were familiar and in whose absolute integrity and complete independence they themselves could place entire trust.

I yield to none in my respect for the Gárda Síochána. I remember being told by a relative of mine, who is a judge on the High Court bench, that he never convicted any man on the uncorroborated testimony of a policeman. He did not want to suggest that policemen were constitutional perjurers, but he said that when you are 25 years in the police of any country and you know a particular man is a thug, a rascal, and a rogue and it is likely that he has committed a particular crime you are inclined to go into court convinced that the man did commit that crime and, subconsciously sometimes, provide the little missing link that ties the case up and finishes it off. So, the magistrate who knows his area well knows the Guards in it; he listens to them and gives due regard to the testimony of the police, fully knowing that they are conscientious, honest, straight men but understanding that the nature of their profession creates and induces weaknesses for which due allowances must be made by an experienced judge dealing with similar cases week in and week out, year in and year out. Those Deputies here who have experience of the administration of justice in the city, will be better informed on that than I am. I think it would be well if some of those Deputies would refer to the matter which I have raised and give us, from their experience, the benefit of their advice.

I entirely agree with Deputy Cosgrave that 65 is too early to relegate a judge, puisne or otherwise, to the scrap heap. Does anyone suggest in this House that we should scrap the Taoiseach? He is as lively as a kitten. Who will deny that the duties, responsibilities, and the work of the Taoiseach are much more onerous that those of a district justice? As far as I know, the Taoiseach celebrates his 65th birthday this year.

Mr. Boland

The year after.

Mr. Dillon

I thought he was born in '81.

Mr. Boland

'82.

Mr. Dillon

He is as lively as a kitten, God bless him, and I think he would be a rash man who would suggest that, on grounds of senility, we ought to get rid of him. I think he would be the first to say himself that when he tops 70 it will be time enough for him to go to the Phoenix Park, not because he is not brisk and cheerful but because there is a danger that when one passes that age a certain rigidity of mind tends to set in. It is a terrible hardship on a vigorous man of 67 or 68 to be kicked out and told that he is no good. Manifestly, it is absurd. Think of it for a moment. A judge of 69 years of age, four years in retirement—it is absolutely idiotic. Some of the best opinions at the Bar are made at that age. Some of the most learned judgments ever given on the Bench in this country, or Great Britain, were given by men in excess of that age. I agree it is necessary to fix some age. Those Deputies who have read the correspondence between Sir Frederick Pollock and Mr. Justice Holmes will understand what I mean. On his appointment at 65, Mr. Justice Holmes wrote to Sir Frederick Pollock and said that he had fully made up his mind that on his 70th birthday he would retire, no matter who pressed him to remain. On his 90th birthday he wrote to Sir Frederick Pollock, told him that he never felt better and that he was putting in a good day's work. He died still adorning the Bench in his 93rd year, and a very remarkable old gentleman he was. But his view changed about the propriety of retiring at 70 as the fatal day approached. I think, therefore, that it is right to fix some age, but 65 is manifestly too low.

Now, what about the clerk? We are making all sorts of provisions here for the district justice. I think I am entitled to suggest that in reconstituting the courts for their greater efficiency, some regard might be had for the clerks. There is only one plea I want to make for them, and I think myself it is a modest one; that is, they should be given the same measure of security that every other public servant in the State enjoys. All I ask is that the District Court clerk, when he has served his term, will get a pension. When this State was established we took over a number of persons who had been Petty Sessions Court clerks. Most of these men were in middle age. We all remember that being a District Court clerk in the early days was no fun. In certain parts of the country it was a very dangerous occupation. These persons carried on through fair weather and foul. I think all will agree that the standard of excellence of the District Court clerks is quite extraordinary. The number of scandals in connection with that class of officers has been most remarkably small considering the speed and emergency that existed in the appointing of them. Surely it is not unreasonable to say now, when many of them, particularly the middle-aged men, are reaching the age when they will be expected to retire, that they ought to be given pension rights. Nothing is so hard for a man who has enjoyed a very modest salary all his life, but such an income as made it almost impossible for him to maintain a respectable exterior, as to look forward to the time when he has to say to his wife and children: "We now must move out of the modest house we have and go into a labourer's cottage, because I have no pension, and to keep up the reasonable exterior of respectability that was becoming an officer of the District Court, we had to live up to the last penny I was able to earn. There is no nest-egg laid up, because the salary granted to us did not permit of a married man leaving aside anything".

It would not break the State to give these men the measure of security they seek and I beg this House—may I engage the attention for a moment of the public-spirited Fianna Fáil T.D.s present—to do it now for this reason, that there is an absolutely cast-iron blank wall in the Department of Finance against making any pension legislation retrospective, and, if we do not grant the pensions now and five or six of these District Court clerks go out or retire, even though there is a pension scheme brought in for District Court clerks as a class next autumn, the men who are retired between now and next autumn will not be allowed to be made more eligible for it without any regard to the merits of their claim, because if that pension legislation was made retrospective, there are hundreds of similar claimants all of whom would quote this as a precedent and the Department of Finance will not face the avalanche that might thereby be created. Therefore, I do most earnestly urge on the Deputies of the Fianna Fáil Party to encourage their Minister to beard the Minister for Finance in regard to this matter and get for all the clerks equitable treatment in time so as to ensure that we will not have a situation such as existed in regard to the County Court registrars, where every registrar in Ireland for all time to the crack of doom has pension rights except three who happened to retire eight or nine months before the pension legislation was passed.

When you put that case to the Government you are told: "We can do nothing because if we gave these three County Court registrars their pension, other pensions would have to be made retrospective." Do not let us have that horrible anomaly in regard to the County Court clerks. We are all agreed that they ought to have pensions. Let us ensure that all of them will be treated pari passu. If he will add that to the Bill, then I think the Minister for Justice may have reason to congratulate himself on having brought forward this measure.

Mr. O'Connor

Every one who practises in the Dublin District Court will welcome this Bill and the proposed reorganisation of the business. But I suggest to the Minister that it might be better if, when doing this, he would incorporate the county and have one unit of the District Court to cover Dublin City and County. The county is in the most extraordinary position. You will read of cases where there may be a sitting at a place like Balbriggan and, if the proceedings have to be adjourned for a small matter of detail, such as fixing bails, the adjournment may be made to a place as far away as Shankill, which would be about 30 miles away. The parties coming from Balbriggan to Shankill would have to pass by the District Court in Dublin and go miles out. In the same way, there are certain districts which were only taken into the City of Dublin a couple of years ago and they are still in the county for the purposes of the District Court. Therefore, if a man from a place like Whitehall in Upper Drumcondra is summoned to attend the District Court, the court he goes to is Kilmainham. He has to travel to the city and from that to Kilmainham, leaving the Dublin District Court behind him. All that might be avoided if the city and county were incorporated into one unit.

I think the greatest merit that will flow from this reorganisation is that there will be a continuity with regard to the hearing of a certain type of case by one justice. As an example of that, take a civil case which is being heard. If the justice has to adjourn it for any reason, he must adjourn it for three weeks, because it will be three weeks at least before that justice will be hearing civil cases again. Similarly, when depositions are being taken in criminal cases, the justice very often would like to sit the following day so as to finish the case. But he finds he has to adjourn for a week or perhaps longer, because he has been assigned to other business which would not permit of his taking depositions on the following day.

I think, however, the most satisfactory feature of this Bill is the removal of the grave injustice which has prevailed for some years past in regard to the assistant justices. It was not generally known that these were not assistant justices. It was only when they were appointed that they may have been told that they were assistant justices. After that there was no distinction whatever between their work and their responsibility and that of district justices. The only distinction was that they were paid less. You had the extraordinary feature that men who might be doing similar work were getting less money than others. I think it was a grave injustice. I do not think the present Minister had anything to do with the appointment of assistant justices. I am very glad that he is now making an end of the practice, so that in future every man who sits in the District Court will be on the same footing, with the exception of the senior justices, and will get the same pay. I suggest to the Minister that so grave is the injustice done to these assistant justices that he might make this increase or rectification of their salaries retrospective.

Mr. Dillon

The whole Department of Finance would go into hysterics.

Mr. O'Connor

With regard to the age of retirement, I agree with Deputy Cosgrave that the age should be 70, not 65; but I would have no objection if the continuance from 65 to 70 would be subject to the approval of some higher official, such as the Chief Justice or a judge of the High Court. I think it is not fair that a man who is active and able to carry out his duties should be forced out at the age of 65. If the age of 65 is to stand, then I suggest that a justice should get the full pension after 25 years' service. At present the justice must serve 30 years to get the full pension. The average age of appointment is in or around 40, so that it is not possible for a justice who is appointed at the age of 40 ever to reach the full maximum pension, which I think is two-thirds of the salary. I would prefer that the age be extended.

With regard to the suggested increase in the jurisdiction of the District Court. I am afraid that something terrible has happened to either Deputy Dillon or myself, because for the first time since I came in here, I find myself in perfect agreement with him.

Mr. Dillon

We live and learn.

Mr. O'Connor

I think it would be very wise to increase the jurisdiction of the District Court, not perhaps to the figure that Deputy Dillon suggested, but at any rate it should be increased. The court has proved so satisfactory that I think an increase in its jurisdiction would be welcomed by all.

Mr. Dillon

Would the Deputy agree that matters of title might be settled in that court?

Mr. O'Connor

Yes, all matters of title under a certain limit of valuation. I would put the limit on either the amount of money involved or the value of the property involved; I would not exclude anything else.

Mr. Dillon

Might not there be some question of determining certain obscure types of title and withdrawing them from the jurisdiction of the District Court?

Mr. O'Connor

That is, on a question of fact?

Mr. Dillon

Perhaps it is too technical a matter to discuss across the floor of the House, but it is worthy of consideration.

Mr. O'Connor

Every question of title within a certain limit of valuation could be safely left to the District Court. There is another important matter which affects district justices, and it is this. If a district justice serves with distinction and satisfaction, he should be eligible for promotion to the Circuit Court if, and only if, he had been a barrister before he became a district justice. If he had first been a solicitor and was appointed a district justice, no matter how distinguished he may have been, no matter how great a jurist, he could never be appointed to the Circuit Court, because the qualification for appointment there is ten years practising as a barrister. I suggest that qualification should be ten years as a barrister or as a solicitor. Both should be placed on the same footing and I do not think there would be any objection if that were done; I am almost satisfied there would be no objection from the Bar if the Minister were to make that alteration and I think the alteration should be made in this Bill.

With regard to the District Court clerks, mentioned by Deputy Dillon, I am not so satisfied that that could be dealt with in this Bill. I think it comes within the Court Officers Act. No matter what Act it comes under, I am in perfect agreement with Deputy Dillon that they should be put on a much better basis and they should have pension rights. It would not be an unusual thing for a Minister for Justice to exert pressure on the Minister for Finance. I know he has done that before. Probably he has done it already in the case of the District Court clerks. I do not think he waited for Deputy Dillon or anyone else to suggest it to him. If it were represented to the Minister for Finance that all sections of the House would support the proposal, something might come of it. These men are as much entitled to a pension as other public officials and they should have it.

Mr. Dillon

Assuming Deputy O'Connor's proposal for the amalgamation of the city and county District Court business were adopted, is there any merit in the suggestion that instead of dividing the District Court business into divisions of classes of business, there should be a division into District Court areas, analogous to the system obtaining in London?

Mr. O'Connor

No. I think the system the Minister has in mind is the best—to divide it according to the class of business done. I think it would work out much better that way.

Mr. M. O'Sullivan

Deputy Cosgrave and Deputy Dillon, and Deputy O'Connor in a minor form and with certain reservations, pleaded with the Minister to raise the retiring age limit from 65 to 70 years. I hope the Minister will resist that plea. There should be an element of consistency so far as State services are concerned. The whole local government code is about to be operated on the basis of a limit of 65 years.

Mr. Dillon

Judges are not Government servants.

Mr. M. O'Sullivan

They are in any case State servants. They are doing the work of the State and I do not see why any exception should be made of district justices. If you want to make an exception of a district justice simply because he is a fit man at 67 or 68, the same might apply to a local doctor who is required to retire at 65 under the local government code.

Mr. Dillon

He can engage in private practice.

Mr. M. O'Sullivan

Quite so, but would the district justice be deprived of the right to earn a livelihood?

Mr. Dillon

Not by law, but virtually.

Mr. M. O'Sullivan

The main reason why I argue against an extension beyond 65 years is the growing tendency in industrial and commercial life to retire servants at 65—and it is a very proper tendency, too. First of all, it is the time of life when an individual might expect to retire, always bearing in mind he is in a position to do so and, secondly, it gives an opportunity to younger men to get promotion which would otherwise be denied them. Deputy O'Connor made quite a good point with reference to the retirement of district justices at 65. There might be a hardship. When I suggest retirement at 65, I envisage that there will be a proper scale of superannuation so as to ensure that the man will be in a position to spend the rest of his days above the stage of want. Deputy O'Connor suggests that because of his comparatively late entry into the service, the district justice will be precluded at 65 from getting the maximum pension under the present code. There is a very good case there for altering that section, but, taking one thing with the other, I hope the Minister will urge, because of the tendency in the country to regard 65 as the normal age of retirement, that this Bill should not be chosen as the one to make the exception.

I am in complete agreement with a plea made by Deputy Dillon with reference to the District Court clerks. I know a number of these people throughout the country and, when we refer to the excellent work done by district justices—and I am quite prepared to pay them that tribute, that they are playing a very important part in the social life of the community—I think Deputies will agree that a very large slice of that excellence would be missing if it were not for the machinery provided by the District Court clerks. These men are well educated and they usually have a good store of local knowledge. Not infrequently is the clerk regarded as the adviser of the district justice. It is monstrous that an individual of that character, who is regarded as occupying an important State post, should be deprived of pension rights. If the district justice is entitled to permanency and security, these things should equally flow to the individual who is helping him in the discharge of his duties.

Deputy O'Connor suggested that while this may be quite outside the purview of this Bill, an expression of opinion from all sections of the House might induce the Minister to submit a good case to the Minister for Finance So far as the members of this Party are concerned, I can convey the assurance to the Minister that we are deeply impressed by that aspect of the matter and we would be very glad to see him taking that step.

As regards the jurisdiction of the court, I find myself in perfect agreement with Deputy Dillon and Deputy O'Connor. Since it is the poorer sections of the people who are mostly affected by the present limit of jurisdiction, I feel a good case can be made for raising the figure of £25, even to the figure suggested by Deputy Dillon, which I think is practicable. The arbitrary figure of £25 should be removed because it will make for cheaper litigation and it will lower the cost to the people.

Mr. Dillon

It would mean cheaper justice.

Mr. Moran

I welcome this Bill. There are certain matters to which I would like to draw the Minister's attention. I am in agreement with Deputy O'Sullivan that the age limit should be 65 years. It is a good thing that justices should have to retire at 65. At the same time, I feel that better provision should be made for pensions for justices. You look for an experienced man. The more experience he has the better district justice he will be.

I am rather disappointed that there is not some provision made in this Bill dealing with jurisdiction. For some time I have been asking the Minister to introduce a Bill to increase jurisdiction, as has been suggested in the debate to-day. From a commonsense point of view, there appears to be no good reason why the jurisdiction of the District Courts should not be increased, particularly in contract and tort. There is no reason, for instance, why an assault action involving £12 damages could not be tried in the District Court when cases involving up to £10 can be tried in that way. If the jurisdiction of District Courts were increased, the Minister would go a long way towards reducing the cost of litigation and towards providing a much better service for the people, particularly the poorer elements in the community.

Further, I should like to see pleadings abolished in the Circuit Court, except in some specified cases. Under our present code, there is a number of meaningless pleadings, such as entering an appearance, and serving notice of trial. In the old County Court days, when procedure was practically the same as in the District Court to-day, a civil bill was issued. There was no question of pleadings and in that way a good deal of money in charges and counsels' fees was saved. To-day the Circuit Court and solicitors' offices are packed with files covering every case. In my opinion, and in the opinion of most of my colleagues, many of these pleadings are absolutely unnecessary. All that leads to extra cost and extra work which ultimately comes back on the litigant. I suggest to the Minister that, except in some specified cases in which certain pleadings may be necessary, the ordinary rules governing the District Court, under which you can serve notice for particulars and get any particulars you require, should also apply in the Circuit Court and that he should abolish many of the expensive and, to my mind, useless, pleadings.

It has been generally agreed that the District Courts of this country have been the most successful in our whole code. There is not so much agreement on the position of the Circuit Court. We have continual complaints that litigation in the Circuit Court is far too expensive for the ordinary man in the street and, to everybody's knowledge, a simple matter of right of way involves a civil bill being issued in the Circuit Court with all the attendant charges of witnesses' and engineers' expenses. The result is that the families involved in that dispute are liable to be beggared for the rest of their lives by the cost of that simple title action. The simplest form of action is a title action because generally it involves solely a question of fact. Generally it involves, if it is a question of right of way, simply bringing in some old persons to say they saw the particular road or path used by their predecessors in title over a great number of years. Generally there is no complicated question of law at issue. To my mind there is no reason why a District Court should not be in a position to deal with questions of title. There is no reason why the ordinary countryman should not be able to go to the District Court and have his dispute about a title, a fence or right of way determined there at the scale costs obtaining in the District Court.

In connection with Section 22 of this Bill, I am at a loss to understand it. I know that there were doubts expressed as to which court should issue the order but I think this particular section, if it is left as it is, will possibly make confusion more confounded. The section says that where an appeal from the District Court in any matter is determined by the Circuit Court, then, unless the Circuit Court has issued the instrument necessary to enforce its decision, the District Court shall issue the said instrument—unless the Circuit Court has issued it, the District Court will issue it. I can see in practice how that is going to lead to much confusion, because the ordinary practice is that where you have an appeal from the District Court determined by the Circuit Court the solicitors in the case lodge their order for approval with the county registrar and the costs have to be taxed, and so forth. I could imagine it happening that where an order of the Circuit Court on an appeal was lodged with a county registrar for approval and for taxation of the costs, you possibly would have the District Court in the meantime issuing an order. So that you might arrive at a position where you would have, arising out of this confusion, two orders issued. I think the Circuit Court as the court that finally determines the matter is the proper authority to issue the order. Furthermore, the county registrar is present in the Circuit Court, or one of the staff, when the particular appeal is heard and he will have first hand knowledge of the order of the judge and a note of the order of the judge. The suggestion here that the order might be issued by the District Court would mean that the District Court clerk would have to go to the county registrar's office to ascertain what had transpired at the appeal, to get the particulars and then to issue his own order. In order to have finality in the matter, to avoid confusion, I think the Minister should determine in this Bill that it is the District Court and the District Court only that will issue the order or that it is the Circuit Court and the Circuit Court only that will issue the order. The section as it stands may lead to much confusion and on Committee Stage I will ask the Minister to consider that aspect of it and to make the position clear for the future.

I would like the Minister, when replying, to indicate to the House as to when the proposed new Courts of Justice Bill will be introduced dealing with these matters of jurisdiction. Finally I would ask him to consider this matter: It is generally accepted that the High Court on circuit has been a very great success, that it fills a great gap in the procedure as we knew it. It is going back to the position we had in former days. We find in practice that there is general satisfaction with the position that the High Court judges go on circuit and hear appeals from the Circuit Court. As some Deputies have pointed out, one of the main causes of the high cost of litigation is witnesses' expenses. There is genuine hardship at the present time, say, in a running-down case or negligence action in which persons from a remote part of the country are involved. A person who is struck by a car, perhaps a poor man, has to take proceedings in the High Court and the trial is heard in Dublin. In order to prove his case, that poor working man or small farmer has to take a number of medical men to Dublin who may possibly have to stay in Dublin four or five days before the case is heard. There will be engineers and a number of other witnesses in addition, and he is not in a position financially to pay these gentlemen, who, in some cases, will not travel, unless a certain amount of money by way of viaticum is given to them before they leave home. In order to obviate that great hardship, the Minister should allow the High Court on circuit to hear actions of this type. It would not involve any great change in the procedure because the senior counsel on these particular circuits will be there at the time and these people will be enabled to have their actions tried in their native counties and in many cases it would lessen the cost to litigants.

It is a common experience in the country that, although a man may have a good action, he may not be in a position, because of these expenses, to come to Dublin, bringing all these witnesses with him, and prove his case. In many cases, these men, who possibly would be entitled to a verdict of £400 or £500, have to be advised to limit their claims to £300, so that they can proceed in the Circuit Court and have their actions tried without going to the expense of bringing medical witnesses, engineers and so on to Dublin. The whole system of the administration of justice from the cost point of view should be seriously considered by the Minister, and, as soon as he is in a position to do so, I suggest that he should introduce a Bill making the changes in jurisdiction which have been suggested. If he does so, he will have gone a very long way towards meeting the difficulties with which the ordinary man is confronted in the matter of litigation to-day.

Mr. McMenamin

I had no desire to intervene in this debate, but there has been a line-up on the question of jurisdiction. If we are to increase the jurisdiction from £25 which was fixed in the Courts of Justice Act of 1923, to £100, it can be asked why we should stop at £100. Surely there must have been some valid reason for fixing that limit. If you fix a higher sum, you introduce actions which are very complicated and it will mean the creation of accounting machinery in the District Court to handle these cases. Are we prepared, when we talk about cheap litigation, and, on the pretext of giving cheap litigation, urge the raising of the jurisdiction, to set up new machinery in the District Court for dealing with it? Every Act passed here means more cost, and, if we increase the jurisdiction, it means setting up in the District Court accounting machinery to deal with the complicated matters which will come before it arising out of that increased jurisdiction. The same applies to matters of title. It will be necessary to have a central office for each county because the District Court will not have an office to deal with these matters. Surely nobody will suggest that that machinery should be set up, with all the additional cost it would involve.

Deputies seem to be very tender skinned with regard to the cost of litigation. My experience of litigants is that, when they want to go to law, they will go, irrespective of the cost, and it would be wise to have some restraining influence on certain people because it is very difficult to keep them from litigation. Even when advised by their legal advisers, they cannot be restrained. In order not to overload the District Court with complicated matters involving the setting up of accounting machinery, the District Court jurisdiction should be kept at a reasonable figure. It is supposed to be the poor man's court, but very few poor men enter into transactions in excess of a value of £25. The amount usually involved is from £5 to £15. The cow which a man buys and sells runs about £15; the bullock, the calf and the heifer may run from £5 to £12; the value of his pony may be £20 in wartime but normally is £10. If one looks at it broadly and keeps in mind that the District Court is the poor man's court, the limit of £25 is quite reasonable and avoids the setting up of elaborate machinery to deal with matters arising out of any increase in that limit.

With regard to the age of retirement, Deputy O'Sullivan based his case on the analogy of the civil servant but, if he thought about it, he would realise that there is no analogy. I am not particularly perturbed about the age at which a district justice retires, but the fact is that a civil servant enters the service at any age from 17 to 22 and consequently spends his whole life in a very tedious, laborious and confined job, whereas the man who is appointed a district justice is not appointed until he has reached the age of 40 years or over. With a retiring age of 65, he gives 20 years' service and may be a very fresh man when he retires. Many civil servants are only at their best at the time they retire, but they are men who have been confined by nature to their vocation so long that they are unable to develop any hobbies and they totter about the streets and in a couple of years have the appearance of men of 80. It would be much better for the normal healthy man, including the civil servant, to remain until he was 70 or whatever age at which he liked to go, provided he had a virile mind and was active. It would be a very wise provision to extend the age limit to 70.

I should like to reinforce what Deputy Cosgrave said with regard to the division of the work. I take it the Minister referred to the division of business into classes—criminal, civil and juvenile. I take it that that is what is meant by the section, but it would certainly be very wrong if the Minister should assign any particular case to a particular justice. If it is merely a question of dividing the business into criminal, civil and juvenile, there is no objection to it, but it would be very serious if the Minister were to retain the power to assign any particular case or classes of cases to a particular district justice.

I should like the Minister to explain the arrangement for enforcing decrees arising out of cases that originate in the District Court. There should be specific machinery for that purpose, and no wobbling about having it enforced either by the District Court clerk or the county registrar of the Criminal Court. There should be no misunderstanding about the position. It should be left to the county registrar to enforce an appeal when it went from the District Court to the Circuit Court. At present a decree would be enforced by the District Court clerk in one case and in another case by the county registrar. Coming to the position of District Court clerks these men have to eventually retire from active work connected with that position. The duties make it necessary that they should be pretty active men. In view of the onerous and confidential work that they perform, it would be prudent that they should be protected by having pensions. The administration of justice should be above suspicion, and the men who administer it should be above reproach. Accordingly they should be put into a position to protect their integrity.

When it came to considering the position of officers who, in the main, work the machinery, why was an exception made in their case? It seems to be very ungrateful when men reach 65 or 67 years of age that they have to retire without recognition. Something should be done to deal with their case. When so much is done to protect the integrity of the law, we should not stop in the case of officials who have rendered loyal service. I am in favour of steps being taken to deal with them, because I consider that the gap that now exists should be closed. Nationally I consider it bad to treat them as they have been treated.

Mr. Costello

This Bill is largely concerned with matters affecting the District Court. So far as it is possible to extract any principle from the Bill, which would be the subject matter of discussion on Second Reading, the principle appears to be contained in the tendency, which I seem to get from the general provisions of the Bill— coupled with the attitude of Ministers in recent discussions—to regard the District Court as something apart from the general judicial system; something that is really, or that in the opinion of the Department of Justice ought to be a sub-department of the Department of Justice. It appears to me that in this Bill there is a tendency to gain greater control by the Department of Justice over not merely the activities of the court but the very members of the court itself. So far as that principle is contained in the Bill, and so far as there is a tendency in that direction, I would be opposed to any such principle or tendency.

The Minister may not recall, but many of the principal officers will have a clear recollection of the somewhat acrimonious dispute which arose in 1926 between his predecessor, the late Kevin O'Higgins, and the late Chief Justice Kennedy over that very point, the tendency of the Department to interfere unduly, as the late Chief Justice Kennedy put it, "in the affairs of the court." A formula was discovered by means of which that dispute was enabled to be prevented from reaching serious proportions. It appears to me that the matters which gave rise to that dispute are contained in some of the provisions of this Bill. Perhaps the Minister or the officers of the Department do not fully realise it. At the same time, it is a matter of fundamental importance to the citizens, that the line between the judicial functions and the executive or administrative functions should be very clearly specified and marked out. The independence of the judiciary is a sacred principle, to which everybody subscribes, at least from the lips. But in many respects there has been a tendency in recent years to abrogate that principle, at least in part, or to make inroads upon it.

I can see no reason why the District Court should not be regarded, and should not be treated in every respect as an integral part of the judicial structure. Judges are supposed, in accordance with the Constitution, to be independent in the exercise of their functions. I have never been able to understand why district justices should be singled out as exceptional or in part exceptional to the principle of independence in the exercise of their functions. Everybody, no matter to what political Party he subscribes, will agree that the District Court has been an outstanding success in connection with the new judicial system which was inaugurated by the Courts of Justice Act, 1924. So far as the District Court is concerned it was inaugurated in 1922. The appointment of professional and paid district justices to administer the affairs of what used to be known as the Summary Court, or Petty Sessions Court, was an experiment in a way. At all events, it was a revolutionary step, particularly taken at the time it was and in the circumstances in which it was taken. From the earliest stages in 1923, when the first appointments took place, these people have fulfilled their duties conscientiously and with complete independence; and the whole of the District Court system—as I think it will be admitted by everybody—has proved itself to be a complete success and has given every satisfaction to the citizens, particularly the poorer citizens who have to have resort to that court. But it is not merely in reference to the civil jurisdiction of the court that the District Court has been a success. It has a very wide criminal jurisdiction, and speaking generally, that has been exercised with efficiency and with a considerable degree of clemency which has made it a popular court and a court that is regarded by the people as one in which they will get fair play and just dealing in any dispute which arises between the citizens and the State.

Any step which is likely to interfere, even in the smallest degree, with that confidence which subsists between the ordinary citizen and the courts is one that should not be lightly taken and, unless there is such an overwhelming necessity for interference in the administration of our system of justice by the Government, there should be no step taken to interfere with the administration of the law by the District Courts, with the conduct of their own business, with the regulation of the affairs of their own courts, or with their independence in the exercise of their functions.

Now, here in this Bill we have at least two matters where the independence and authority of the justices to manage the affairs of their own courts may appear, at all events, to be seriously jeopardised. There is a power in Section 10 for the Minister for Justice to distribute amongst the separate divisions the business to be transacted. The transaction of business in a court of law is primarily and chiefly for the judge sitting, administering the law. The time when the dispute to which I have referred arose it was strongly contended by the Chief Justice that any interference by a Government Department with the regulation of the affairs of the courts or the manner in which the business of the court should be conducted was an interference with the independence of the judiciary. So far back as 1924 and certainly in 1936 an effort was made to make a distinction between the tenure of a district justice and that of even a Circuit Court judge, and certainly that of a High Court judge or a Supreme Court judge. District justices were subjected to a tribunal under the Act of 1936 which would inquire into their conduct when complaint had been made. No such tribunal exists in the case of a High Court judge, a Supreme Court judge, or even a Circuit Court judge. The very fact that such a tribunal is set up rather underlines the tendency which, I fear, appears even more pronouncedly in this Bill because in this particular Bill even that protection, which district justices had under the tribunal set up under the 1936 Act, disappears and their conduct and even their health can now be inquired into by a single High Court judge or Supreme Court judge. I think that is a very bad principle and one which is utterly unnecessary and I think it is a principle upon which we should not insist. I do not know what case the Minister makes for that particular provision. Possibly the matter may be more fully debated on the Committee Stage. But it is a matter to which I think I must draw attention at this stage because it appears to me to make a very serious inroad into the judicial independence of district justices and to take away from them with one hand what has been given to them by the other. Under Section 19 they appear to be given a tenure of office similar to judges of the Supreme and High Courts. The tenure of office of a judge of both of those courts is "during good behaviour" and no High Court or Supreme Court judge can be removed except for stated misbehaviour, and then only on a vote of both Houses of the Oireachtas. That is given to them by Section 19 but Section 20 immediately proceeds to take it away and says that they can be removed by a single judge.

Mr. Boland

Surely, that is not what it says?

Mr. Costello

That is what I read into it. If the Minister assures me that is not so, that is all right.

Mr. Boland

The judge merely reports the facts.

Mr. Costello

In actual practice what does it mean?

Mr. Boland

It must come before the House before he can be dismissed.

Mr. Costello

Even so, what is the effect of it in present circumstances? A single judge reports adversely to the Minister on a district justice. That particular Minister, whether he is the present Minister or some other Minister, in the way in which the Oireachtas is regulated at the moment has a majority vote in the Dáil and in the Seanad. That majority vote must be straight away put into effect. That is the worst aspect which can be put upon this case. Look upon it at its best; why should a district justice be subjected to this inquiry? What is the point in reporting if it is not to lead to his removal from office or a reprimand from the Minister? Is the Minister to do nothing about it? The Minister may, perhaps, in reply give us some assurances that that is not intended. As it stands at the moment it appears to me to lead inevitably to either of two things, one worse than the other; either a reprimand from the Minister for Justice which, in my view, is very wrong, or else removal from office by a vote of both Houses. It is not suggested that the matter should be left alone. What is intended, therefore, when this single judge has inquired? Single judges, as we know, may vary from time to time and a district justice who happened to get Judge "A" might be very lucky and another who got Judge "B" might be extremely unlucky.

Mr. O'Rourke

What about the people?

Mr. Costello

I do not understand an ignorant remark of that kind from Deputy O'Rourke.

Mr. O'Rourke

You are much more ignorant than I am if you do not understand it.

Mr. Costello

I am speaking on behalf of a Constitution enacted by the people confirming the interests of the judiciary.

Mr. O'Rourke

I am speaking on behalf of the people. If a district justice deserves it he should get it.

Mr. Costello

If a district justice deserves any reprimand the way is provided by the Constitution. I do not see any reason for discrimination as between one branch of the judiciary and another. Why should a district justice be treated differently from a judge of the Supreme Court, of the High Court, or the Circuit Court? There is only a difference in jurisdiction. Each case that is dealt with by a district justice is of supreme importance to the litigant and, for the litigant, it is the only case that exists. The Minister may, perhaps, give me some reason for the necessity for this procedure differing, as it does, from the Circuit Court. I see no reason for it. The district justice deals far more intimately and is far more closely in contact with the lives of the poorest and least fortunate people in the country who are subjected to criminal jurisdiction. He deals far more with the lives rather than with the property of the ordinary people. Why should he be placed in a degraded position in the judicial system? That is the plea I make as a matter of principle. I have no interest whatever in any particular individual on the District Court bench.

At the present moment 90 per cent. of the personnel of the District Court has been appointed by the present Government in the last 14 years, and appointed very largely for political reasons. I take no account of that. I am speaking of principle. No matter who appoints them, or no matter for what reason they are appointed, the principle for which I plead is a principle embodied in the Constitution of 1922 and carried over into the present Constitution; that is the principle of the independence of the judiciary. That principle should apply equally throughout the entire judicial system. I see no reason why the Minister or the Department of Justice should interfere with the Dublin District Court any more than it should interfere with the conduct or powers of the Supreme Court under the Chief Justice, or those of the High Court under the President. With these few general observations on the principles embodied in this Bill, I would like now to pass to a few observations on some of the details. They can be more properly dealt with on the Committee Stage. I shall endeavour to deal with the Bill in the manner in which a Bill should be dealt with on Second Reading, namely, on the principles contained in it. The principles, so far as they can be extracted from the various details, tend in the general direction to which I have adverted. Section 5 of Part II of the Bill deals with the Dublin District Court. The business transacted in the Dublin District Court is becoming of extreme importance to the Dublin citizen and even to the rest of the country. It has increased out of all proportion to what people thought would have to be dealt with in that court since the district justices were appointed or the then metropolitan magistrates obtained the status of district justices. The business has increased enormously. It is, therefore, of the utmost importance.

I do not know why it was necessary to have these three divisions which are contained in the Bill dealing with the Dublin District Court. Doubtless the Minister, when introducing the Bill, gave the reasons for the system proposed in Section 5, but, unfortunately, I was not able to be present. I should like, however, to direct the Minister's attention to one or two matters in connection with the Dublin District Court. The first is that, so far as I can see, the scheme in Section 5 appears to have lost one cog in the machine; it will not work. The matter can be set right on the Committee Stage. There is a provision in Section 5 that the division shall consist of a principal justice and two ordinary justices of the division. Section 6 then provides that the principal justice of the division shall be nominated by the Minister from amongst the Dublin metropolitan justices. A further part of the section provides that each ordinary justice is to be nominated from amongst the Dublin metropolitan justices. There are only three metropolitan justices at the moment. There are to be three divisions, and each principal of a division is to be appointed from the Dublin metropolitan justices. There is nothing left. Perhaps the Minister may consider that matter. It seems to me that the machinery here misses something. There are to be three divisions, and each division is to have as its head a person from the existing metropolitan justices. There are only three of them and, therefore, when the three existing justices are exhausted, there is nobody who can be appointed to the six other vacancies. The Minister did make a statement to me, in the course of the discussion on the Department of Justice Estimate, that it was intended that these people who are acting at the moment as assistant justices in the Dublin District Court would be appointed permanent district justices. They may be appointed permanent district justices, as I hope they will be, in accordance with the Minister's statement, but where is the power to appoint them Dublin metropolitan justices? Perhaps the Minister will refer me to it in the course of his reply, or look into the matter between this and the Committee Stage.

I have already referred the Minister to the objection I have to Section 10:—

"The business of the District Court... shall be distributed amongst the several divisions in such manner as the Minister may from time to time direct."

According to the power contained in that section, if passed into law, the entire business of the District Court is under the direction of a Government Department. The late Chief Justice Kennedy objected to a similar provision in the Courts Officers Act, 1926, or an analogous provision, if not a similar one, and made a very public and strong protest against it at the time. I do not wish to continue any such dispute between the judiciary and the Government Department concerned. I have no interest either in the judiciary or the Government Department except that of an ordinary Deputy endeavouring to see that the administration of justice is carried out, as I think it ought to be carried out, in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution. I had a very large part to play in connection with the dispute at that time between the late Mr. Kevin O'Higgins and the late Chief Justice and succeeded in resolving the problem. I do not want to see that again. Apart from not wishing to see any friction between the judiciary and the Minister or the executive arm of the Government, I think it is a serious inroad into the principle of the independence of the judiciary. A judge, whether he belongs to the lower ranking section of the judicial hierarchy or the higher, ought to have control of his own court. If he has not control, through the exercise by politicians of control, of the business of his own court, his functions may be seriously interfered with and his independence sapped.

Section 14 deals with the age of retirement. I see no question of principle involved in that. I find it a little difficult to understand why a district justice should have to retire at 65, while a Supreme Court judge, a High Court judge and a Circuit Court judge can go on until he is 72. I do know that the Dublin metropolitan justices are subjected to a far more serious strain in the exercise of their judicial duties than perhaps the other district justices throughout the country. But I think that is a matter which ought to be taken into account by seeing that they are not overworked and, not being overworked, that they should be allowed to remain on, if they are in good health and their intellect survives the strain, until the same age as the Circuit Court judges and the other judicial personages.

There is, however, one matter to which I should like to direct the Minister's attention and ask for serious and, perhaps, sympathetic consideration of it. May I mention here that I am not speaking at the request of any individual? I am speaking entirely on my own responsibility. Sub-section (2) of Section 14 provides that, although the general age of retirement for a justice is henceforth to be 65, "every person who is, immediately before the operative date, a Dublin metropolitan justice or a justice permanently assigned to the district comprising or including the County Borough of Cork, shall be 70 years." I should like to make a plea in this respect for those persons on whose behalf I have frequently spoken before in this House on the Estimate for the Department of Justice, namely, those persons who were appointed assistant justices and who did not get what they were entitled to expect they would have got, namely, promotion from the ranks of assistant justice to permanent justice.

Mr. Boland

They would not take it outside the city and there were no vacancies in the city.

Mr. Costello

I do not know anything about that. At all events, for a number of years these people were not appointed district justices. The Minister did, in reply to me, state during the discussion on the Estimate for the Department of Justice last year, and he repeated it, I think, this year, that it was his intention to appoint these assistant district justices in Dublin to be permanent justices. I am speaking not merely for the Dublin assistant justices, but for assistant justices formerly working throughout the country who, perhaps, may have been temporarily assigned to Dublin. Originally they were operating throughout the country. By force of circumstances and the increase in the business of the Dublin District Court, they became allocated to the Dublin District Court, but they did not come within the description, as I understand it, of a Dublin metropolitan justice. I may be wrong in that, but I think I am not. If these people, who were assistant justices, do not come within the description of Dublin metropolitan justices in sub-section (2), they should be given the right to remain on in the position, subject to the overriding considerations of good conduct and good health, until the age of 70. Those men were left on a low salary. They were appointed originally at £800 a year. It was only after a considerable number of years their salaries were increased to £900. As regards pensions, they have lost during those years a fair amount of money; it would amount to a considerable capital sum if it were totted up. I wish the Minister would consider those cases, in addition to a case for the Dublin metropolitan justices, of whom, so far as I know, there are only three.

The Bill contains a provision with which I am in thorough agreement, that there shall be no more assistant justices. But the Bill lacks a provision that I would like to see inserted in it, a provision limiting the number of temporary justices. The Minister has repeatedly said that he agreed with me that the appointment of a number of temporary justices is a very bad principle. The principle has been so much extended in recent years that I was informed—and I raised the matter during the discussion on the Department of Justice Estimate this year—that it would appear to be the practice now that no person can hope, in the ordinary course of events, to be appointed as a permanent district justice unless he first serves a term as a temporary justice. That, in my view, is an extremely bad and vicious principle. It means, in relation to a temporary justice, that unless, when he is being tried out, he toes the line, in accordance with what the particular authorities who happen to be there may wish him to do, he is liable not to be appointed.

I am making no aspersions on the administration of the Minister's Department; I am raising this matter purely as a question of principle. That is fundamentally what is wrong. That is what was wrong with the removable magistrates in the British days; they were removable because they did not do what they were told to do. If you have a temporary justice whose prospect of becoming permanent depends on the way he conducts himself during his tenure as temporary district justice, that lays itself open to very serious considerations which are contrary to the public interest.

I understand from Deputy McMenamin's speech, and from what I was told, that the question of increasing the jurisdiction of the District Courts was raised. It did not appear to me that that question would arise on the Bill, but it has arisen and I would like to make my profession of faith on that particular matter. I will repeat what I heard a well-known Supreme Court judge stating from the bench on the first occasion on which he sat after the putting into operation of the provisions of the Courts of Justice Act, 1936, when all appeals from the Circuit Court were re-heard by the High Court on circuit at a full re-hearing. The system was changed from an appeal on notes from the Circuit Court to the High Court to a system whereby the appeal was from the Circuit Court to the High Court on circuit, the appeal being on a full re-hearing.

This judge, who certainly can be said to be eminent in his profession of the law and in his profession as a judge, said, in the course of his observations in opening the court, what appealed to me—and I shall never forget it, as I was rather against the change from the system in the Courts of Justice Act, 1924. One of the reasons for that change was that the bringing of the High Court and Supreme Court judges near to the homes of the people would bring to them, first of all, within the reach of small cases, the judges of the High Court in this country, and the ordinary country litigant would have the opportunity of presenting his case in person to a High Court judge or a Circuit Court judge and have his case heard and determined locally and that would result in respect for the law and bringing home to the people the fact that the law was the law of the people, their own law, and it would induce respect for the law and the courts and the institutions of the State.

If the jurisdiction that exists now is increased in civil cases from £25 to £50, that will take away from the jurisdiction of the High Court on circuit the vast majority of cases heard before these judges, and it will take away from the ordinary people and put into the pockets of a few solicitors practising in the country, some little additional costs and it will take from the ordinary person the right to have his case retried before a High Court or Supreme Court judge. The vast majority of cases in the country are under £50. If the jurisdiction is increased from £25 the position will be that necessarily these cases will be heard by district justices, with a possible appeal to a Circuit Court judge, and there will be no possibility of the majority of cases arising in the country being determined by a High Court or Circuit Court judge.

It may be there is nothing in what I have said, that the bringing of the High Court or Circuit Court judge to the people and letting the ordinary person have his small case about a right of way, a dispute with his neighbour, an assault case, or anything of that nature, heard by one of the most eminent judges in the country. It may be held that that may not bring about respect for the law, but that that aspect did appeal to me. It affects little the members of the profession to which I belong whether the jurisdiction of the District Court is increased or decreased, but it may affect a litigant in the manner I have mentioned. He likes to have his case heard by the High Court judge or the Supreme Court judge—the judge coming down from Dublin. I have some experience of dealing with country cases. Take that away from the countryman and you possibly take away something which is of value along the lines I have suggested.

The last matter I want to mention has reference to pensions for District Court clerks. I would like to raise my voice in support of those people. A good case has been made on their behalf and I do not intend to take up the time of the House in reiterating what already has been said.

Mr. Blowick

The closing remarks of the last speaker bore out the views I hold and that I wished to put before the Minister, with reference to pensions for District Court clerks. The number in the country is very small; I am informed it is about 23. They give their time and service to the country the same as other officials and they are the only section who have not been granted pensions. I wish to add my voice to the voices of those who mentioned the desirability of granting these men pensions. This is a very suitable time to do that. A number of of clerks will be retiring in the near future—three or four, I think. If legislation dealing with this matter is to be brought in in the future, it will never cover these men and it will mean that they will go out without pensions. Legislation may be introduced in a short time, but if it is not embodied in this Bill it will not cover these cases. Now is the most appropriate time to meet the cases in that small and very deserving section.

Mr. Boland

Practically every Deputy referred to the District Court clerks. They could not be dealt with in this Bill—that is a matter for the Court Officers Bill, I understand. I have been speaking to the Minister for Finance about these clerks and he cannot separate them from the position of other temporary clerks in the service. There is a difficulty about court clerks in this way, that the practice is, as far as possible, to amalgamate different clerkships and different court areas when vacancies arise and try to make the clerkship worth while. There are remote areas where a District Court is held where it would be impossible to have them amalgamated and where the clerk is simply a part-time man. There are difficulties of that kind. In any case, that is not a matter for this Bill. I will bear in mind all that has been said by Deputies on the subject and see if anything can be done but I am afraid the big obstacle is that there are temporary officials all over the service who will have to be taken into consideration. That is a matter for the Minister for Finance. He is not prepared, as far as I can see, to separate the question from that of the general question of temporary civil servants.

I am at a loss to understand Deputy Costello's statement about the way we are treating district justices in this Bill. I should have imagined that we have improved their status. There was always a distinction made between the District Courts and other courts. It did not start in our time. Under the 1924 Act it was on the report of that committee that a district justice could be dismissed. For some reason, it did not say who was to dismiss him. I think that was an oversight—it was a hastily drafted Act—but it was understood to be the Government and, in the 1936 Act, they put it in. The same machinery was there and, in that way, there was a clear distinction drawn between the position of a district justice and the position of a judge of the Circuit Court or the High Court. That is being remedied by Section 19.

All we are proposing to do under Section 20 is to give the Minister for Justice the right to ask the Chief Justice to nominate a judge to inquire into matters which he would want to have inquired into and to make a report on the facts to him. In the other case, a certificate from that committee was sufficient to enable the Government, without coming to the two Houses of the Oireachtas, to dismiss him. I think that is a very big improvement in the status and tenure of a district justice.

Deputy Cosgrave and other Deputies objected to the reduction of the retiring age to 65. Some Deputies approved of it. I think it was very necessary that there should be the same retiring age for district justices, that is, 65 everywhere except in Dublin and Cork. Those who know the work of the district justices know that they have to travel in all weathers to all parts of the country far more often than the Circuit Court judge and that in Dublin their work is of such a strenuous nature that when a district justice comes to the age of 65 he will find it hard to keep up with the pace that is required. I admit that there is a case, which I will put to the Minister for Finance, to try to do something about reducing the time in which he would be entitled to the maximum pension. There is a case for that and I will see if I can do anything about it but I certainly think that 65 is a reasonable age considering the onerous nature of the work they have to do.

Practically every Deputy, with a few exceptions, was in favour of extending the jurisdiction of the District Court. Deputy Costello and, I think, Deputy McMenamin are not. Deputy McGilligan is always saying that the £1 now is worth only 10/-. Even from that point of view, I think there is need to consider the whole question of jurisdiction. Of course, that matter will arise under a Courts of Justice Bill. I cannot say when we will have that Bill ready. I do not think it will be ready for the next session. The whole matter can be discussed on that Bill. I think Deputy Dillon suggested it should go up to £100 and should include questions of title. That whole question can be dealt with when the Bill comes before the House. I have not it ready yet.

In regard to Deputy O'Connor's suggestion, I think things are bad enough, that there is enough congestion and difficulty in Dublin, without increasing it. That is why we had to have the arrangement to divide the work into three parts, but I do not know what would be the position if we were to bring in the county in addition.

Mr. Cosgrave

There is terrible congestion in the county.

Mr. Boland

I know, but to bring it into the city certainly would not improve matters. There is the question of buildings and the whole geography of the county. I do not think it would do at all. Whatever it may be necessary to do for the county, the position is certainly not going to be remedied by superimposing that burden on the already overworked city.

Mr. Cosgrave

I think the Minister should consider an arrangement similar to the one for Dublin for the county.

Mr. Boland

That is another matter.

Mr. O'Connor

There is only one justice there.

Mr. Cosgrave

And he is overworked.

Mr. Boland

Deputy O'Connor spoke about solicitors in the District Court, and proposed that if they have acted as district justices they should be eligible for promotion. That would be a matter for another Bill and would not arise on this Bill. Deputy O'Sullivan made the same point. He wants the retiring age kept at 65 and thinks there should be some provision made for reducing the time in which they can become eligible for maximum pension. As I have said, there is something in that and I will see if I can get something done about it.

Deputy Moran had a good deal to say about pleadings. I think I am right in saying that that is more a matter for the Rules of Court than for any Bill. I think the rule-making authority should be approached on a matter of that kind. He also dealt with the question of increased jurisdiction.

In regard to the point made about the independence of the judiciary, I simply cannot understand how Deputy Costello can say that we are in any way trying to interfere with that. We are not in any way. Surely, if there is a question of allocating the work, the person who is really responsible in the long run to the Oireachtas is the Minister for Justice. When questions are addressed to him about the court, he is responsible. If he is satisfied on examination of the whole position that a change is necessary, and if there is a question as to the place in which the courts are to be held and the type of work—not the particular cases, but the type of cases—that should be dealt with by particular justices, there is nobody in a better position than the Minister for Justice would be to allocate that. How that can be called an interference or an attempt at interference with the independence of the judiciary, I certainly cannot see. As a matter of fact, as I pointed out already, we are making the position of the district justice more secure, because he cannot now be dismissed by the Government on the report of any committee; he has got to be brought to both Houses, where every Deputy and Senator will have a chance of saying what he has to say on the matter. I think most of the other points are really Committee points.

Mr. Costello

Will the Minister say what he is going to do with the report of the committee about a district justice when he gets it? Is he going to hold it over his head and threaten that he will bring it to the House, or will he reprimand him?

Mr. Boland

Supposing I do not get a report, supposing the conduct of a justice was such that the Minister for Justice or the Government thought it warranted his dismissal, then the only thing that could be done would be that the matter would be brought here. Is not that so? In the case of a judge of the Supreme Court, or any other judge, that is the only thing that can be done, whereas, in this case, we might be in the position that we could not get a resignation from a man who might be two or three years ill and perhaps not in a condition to resign. There is no way of dismissing him other than by coming to the House. If we could get some impartial judicial person to investigate his illness and make a report to us as to whether he was likely to recover or to be able to do his duty, it would be a solution. There was a case raised some time ago by Deputies on the opposite side in which I would have liked to have had that power. I would very much have liked to have been able to get a judge to go down and make investigations on the spot into the complaints raised here. It would have been very valuable indeed. Under this provision, the Minister will at least have this much: he will have the report of an independent person, a High Court judge, whom no one can accuse of having any bias, who will have inquired into all the circumstances on the spot, and in taking whatever action he takes, having got that report, he will feel more secure than if he were to act on any other kind of report he might get. In that way, it is even an added safeguard for the district justice.

Question put and agreed to.

Committee Stage ordered for Tuesday, 9th July.