Committee on Finance. - Courts of Justice (District Court) Bill, 1946—Committee.
Sections 1 to 5, inclusive, put and agreed to.
SECTION 6.
I move amendment No. 1:—
At the end of sub-section (3) to add the words "with all the privileges as to the number of days of sitting in each week and otherwise in fact enjoyed by him in the discharge of his duties before the operation date."
The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that those Dublin metropolitan magistrates who have been serving for some years past in that capacity will continue to have in their new appointment the same privileges, if that is the proper word, as they have in fact enjoyed from the practice of the court and the tradition of the court since it was established as a District Court, but going back years before the establishment of the District Court, when it was the Dublin Metropolitan Court. I think it will be agreed that the district justice practising as a Dublin metropolitan justice has imposed on him in the discharge of his duties a much severer strain than any other justice practising throughout the country. It has been the tradition and the practice in this court from before it became the District Court and when it was the Dublin Metropolitan Court that the presiding magistrate should not have to sit more than a given number of days a week; four days a week, I think, was the number required in each case. That was found to be the maximum which any magistrate could be reasonably expected to stand, having regard to the number of cases, the volume of the work that came before him, and the type of cases with which he had to deal. I think there can be no doubt that the Dublin District Court has a huge volume of business of a type which imposes a very great strain on the mental balance of a presiding justice. For the purpose of securing that the conditions existing for many years past will not be changed in this Bill this amendment is put down.
Mr. Boland
There is no change proposed. As a matter of fact, the powers in this section are contained in Section 5 of the Court Officers (Amendment) Act, 1937. In practice, the Minister for Justice delegated to the senior justice the fixing of the hours for the court sittings. The reason that Section 5 was included in that Act and the provisions continued in this Bill is that if a justice went a bit queer and said, "We will only sit two days a week" or fixed hours which would not be suitable, the Minister could fix the times. All we are doing in this section is continuing that power. In practice, the same thing will happen.
The intention is to delegate to the principal justice in each case the arrangement of the hours in order to suit the convenience of the court. The presumption is that it will be found satisfactory. If, however, what I have stated should happen, it would be outrageous to think that someone should not have authority to say: "This will not do at all; solicitors and other people are complaining." That has not happened, but it could happen. It is for that reason that the safeguard was inserted in the 1937 Act and is continued in this Bill. For that reason I cannot accept the amendment.
The amendment does not purport to make any alteration in the Minister's power. It merely wishes to leave the position as it stands. The Minister will still have power, if anything outrageous occurred. This is merely to preserve the status quo from the point of view of matters as they stand.
Mr. Boland
I think that it is not necessary. The practice will be continued as it has been, but the safeguard must be continued also. There is no necessity for this amendment. As a matter of fact, strictly speaking, there are no rights at all. The powers conferred are delegated to the justice by the Minister under the present law. No change is being made and there is no intention of making any change in the practice. I think that assurance ought to satisfy the Deputy.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section put and agreed to.
SECTION 7.
Amendment No. 2 not moved.
I move amendment No. 3:—
In paragraph (b), line 48, after the word "Minister" to insert the words "with the consent of the principal justice of such first mentioned division."
This is merely to provide that the Minister will not act without the consent of the presiding justice of the division. Section 7 provides that an ordinary justice may from time to time be transferred by the Minister from his division to another division. It is only proper that the president of that division should be consulted and should give his consent before the ordinary justice who is attached to his division is removed and somebody else substituted. It is a reasonable amendment.
Mr. Boland
In practice that is what will happen. I do not see any Minister acting unfairly in a matter of this kind, but we have to make provision for exceptional cases. In practice the Department will not order a justice from one place to another without consulting the justice and the principal justice. I think there is no necessity for this amendment and that assurance ought to be satisfactory enough. It will not happen in practice, but you should not take that right from the Minister to act in circumstances where it might be necessary.
I think the Minister should reconsider this matter. The Bill gives him considerable powers as to the manner in which business will be dealt with by the District Courts. All courts, certainly all superior courts, have complete control in ordering their own business, and it is a matter within the discretion of the judge as to how business will be dealt with. It is a reflection on district justices that they are unable to manage their own affairs if the Minister must regulate in what circumstances the work will be carried out. Under this Bill you have a principal justice in each division. If this section is enacted it will mean that the principal justice will be without control over the management and distribution of business in his court. I suggest the Minister should allow a justice to operate free from any restriction or interference by the Department.
There is no use in the Minister saying that I can accept his assurance that certain practices will be carried out. That binds nobody, not even the Minister, however honourable his intentions may be. The section contains the bad principle to which I adverted on the Second Reading. It gives the Department control over the judicial business of the courts. I referred to the dispute that arose in 1926 over that very same matter when the Courts Officers Act was going through the House. This section will enable the Minister to transfer an ordinary justice, not merely without the consent of the head of the division, but without his own consent. In principle that is entirely wrong and the Minister should accept, if not this amendment, at least an amendment which will provide that the man himself should give consent to his transfer before the Minister operates this power.
Mr. Boland
I cannot agree with that. If you look at Section 6 (1) you will see that the principal justice shall arrange for the distribution of business amongst the several justices of the division. He has power to do that. It could happen that a justice might not have a full day's work or a week's work and he might take things easily and say, "I am all right where I am and in another section there might be too much work." That might be his attitude and the right to remedy that position should rest with the Minister. If anything goes wrong with a court, it is here the matter is ventilated. A Deputy may put down a question to know why a court adjourned at 2 o'clock when business was in arrears in another area. That could occur.
We assume we will have reasonable people to deal with and that these things will not happen, but you might get some crotchety person who may say, "I am all right here; I have only one or two hours a day and that is quite enough for me." Other people might not think so. An average day's work should be done. I am quite satisfied that in practically every case it will be done, but, should it not be done, the right should rest with the Minister to see that the work is fairly allocated. One section might be overworked and the principal justice might say, "We have too much to do here."
That might be said from the bench and the next thing would be: "Why not appoint someone to help him?" In an adjoining section there may be some slackness in the work and should we leave a man there with not enough to do while another justice would have too much to do? The alternative would be to appoint a temporary district justice. We should not be prevented from having the power to insist on a change being made and I must resist this amendment.
I think the House should not countenance the suggestion that any person appointed to a judicial office will be inclined to shirk his work or do anything improper. We must act on the assumption that every person appointed to judicial office, even the lowest in the judicial hierarchy, will act properly and in accordance with the law. The insertion of this power for the Minister in a section of this kind is an abrogation of the principle of the independence of the judiciary. It is a matter of principle so far as I am concerned, and for this House to say that because some district justice may at some time not do his duty, therefore the Minister, in his political capacity, should have power to interfere with the courts of justice is a thing that the House should not give any adherence to. The section clearly gives power to the Minister to interfere with the conduct of judicial business without the consent of the person whose duty it is to conduct that business. The Minister says he is afraid some Deputy will ask a question.
Mr. Boland
I am not afraid; I said a Deputy might do it.
The mere fact that a Deputy may ask a question is no ground for non-compliance with the constitutional principle of the independence of the judiciary. I do not accept that that is the reason behind this section, whatever the Minister may say. I believe this is an effort by the Department to control district justices in the conduct of their business and I object to any such principle being embodied in the Bill.
Mr. Boland
If there is any question about the constitutional position, there is a remedy; it can be brought to the courts and decided there.
I do not understand that remark.
Mr. Boland
If some Bill is passed by the Oireachtas which is contrary to the Constitution, it can be brought to the courts and decided there.
Mr. Boland
Anyone who has a grievance.
Provided he has the money.
Question put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 25; Níl, 37.
Tá
- Bennett, George C.
- Cafferky, Dominick.
- Coburn, James.
- Cogan, Patrick.
- Commons, Bernard.
- Coogan, Eamonn.
- Corish, Brendan.
- Cosgrave, Liam.
- Costello, John A.
- Dockrell, Henry M.
- Dockrell, Maurice E.
- Donnellan, Michael.
- Doyle, Peadar S.
- Giles, Patrick.
- Hughes, James.
- Keyes, Michael.
- McFadden, Michael Og.
- McMenamin, Daniel.
- Morrissey, Daniel.
- Mulcahy, Richard.
- O'Leary, John.
- Redmond, Bridget M.
- Reynolds, Mary.
- Rogers, Patrick J.
- Sheldon, William A.W.
Níl
- Bartley, Gerald.
- Beegan, Patrick.
- Boland, Gerald.
- Bourke, Dan.
- Brady, Seán.
- Breen, Daniel.
- Brennan, Martin.
- Brennan, Thomas.
- Breslin, Cormac.
- Briscoe, Robert.
- Butler, Bernard.
- Childers, Erskine H.
- Colbert, Michael.
- Colley, Harry.
- Crowley, Honor Mary.
- Derrig, Thomas.
- De Valera, Vivion.
- Gorry, Patrick J.
- Harris, Thomas.
- Hilliard, Michael.
- Killilea, Mark.
- Kissane, Eamon.
- Little, Patrick J.
- Loughman, Frank.
- Lynch, James B.
- MacEntee, Seán.
- McGrath, Patrick.
- O'Briain, Donnchadh.
- O'Connor, John S.
- O'Grady, Seán.
- O'Rourke, Daniel.
- Ryan, James.
- Ryan, Mary B.
- Sheridan, Michael.
- Smith, Patrick.
- Traynor, Oscar.
- Walsh, Richard.
Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Doyle and Bennett; Níl: Deputies Kissane and Ó Briain.
Sections 7 to 9, inclusive, agreed to.
Amendment negatived.
SECTION 10.
I move amendment No. 4:—
In line 22, after the word "may" to insert the words "after consultation with and with the consent of the Principal Justices of such Divisions."
This amendment raises the same point as was raised on the amendment on which the House has just divided.
It is again a question of principle, of the Minister interfering with the transaction of the business of the courts and with the arrangement of the courts. I ask the House to agree with my amendment, and to disagree with the principle in the section.
Mr. Boland
There is no interference with the courts. It is simply allocating the different blocks of work between the three divisions, and that, of course, will be done in consultation with the justices. I resent the statement of the Deputy that there is interference as well as some more remarks that he has made. He is becoming very irresponsible.
I reiterate that this is interference in the business of the courts. If the business of the courts is to be transacted by the district justices, by the judicial personages, it is their duty to arrange the business in accordance with what they know to be the requirements of the public interest. This matter should be approached as all questions of responsibility should be properly approached: that is to say, that the persons appointed to judicial office by whatever Government they are appointed will, when appointed, carry out their public duties properly and in accordance with the public interest. What is behind this is distrust of judicial personages—from the point of view of the attitude of the Department towards it.
Amendment put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 25; Níl, 38.
Tá
- Bennett, George C.
- Cafferky, Dominick.
- Coburn, James.
- Cogan, Patrick.
- Commons, Bernard.
- Coogan, Eamonn.
- Corish, Brendan.
- Cosgrave, Liam.
- Costello, John A.
- Davin, William.
- Dockrell, Henry M.
- Dockrell, Maurice E.
- Donnellan, Michael.
- Doyle, Peadar S.
- Giles, Patrick.
- Hughes, James.
- Keyes, Michael.
- McFadden, Michael Og.
- McMenamin, Daniel.
- Morrissey, Daniel.
- Mulcahy, Richard.
- O'Leary, John.
- Reynolds, Mary.
- Rogers, Patrick J.
- Sheldon, William A.W.
Níl
- Bartley, Gerald.
- Beegan, Patrick.
- Boland, Gerald.
- Bourke, Dan.
- Brady, Seán.
- Breen, Daniel.
- Brennan, Martin.
- Brennan, Thomas.
- Breslin, Cormac.
- Briscoe, Robert.
- Butler, Bernard.
- Carter, Thomas.
- Childers, Erskine H.
- Colbert, Michael.
- Colley, Harry.
- Crowley, Honor Mary.
- Derrig, Thomas.
- De Valera, Vivion.
- Gorry, Patrick J.
- Harris, Thomas.
- Hilliard, Michael.
- Killilea, Mark.
- Kissane, Eamon.
- Lemass, Seán F.
- Loughman, Frank.
- Lynch, James B.
- MacEntee, Seán.
- McGrath, Patrick.
- O'Briain, Donnchadh.
- O'Connor, John S.
- O'Grady, Seán.
- O'Rourke, Daniel.
- Ryan, James.
- Ryan, Mary B.
- Sheridan, Michael.
- Smith, Patrick.
- Traynor, Oscar.
- Walsh, Richard.
Tellers:—Tá: Deputies P.S. Doyle and Bennett; Níl: Deputies Kissane and O'Briain.
Amendment declared negatived.
Section 10 agreed to.
SECTION 11.
I move amendment No. 5:
In sub-section (1), line 24, after the word "division" to insert the words "with the consent of the principal justice of such division."
The same principle is involved in this amendment and the same reply will be given by the Minister. There is no use in wasting the time of the Dáil or my own time by taking things any further.
Mr. Boland
We discussed this matters on amendments Nos. 1 and 2. This is really Section 5 of the old Act in another form.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Sections 11 to 13, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 14.
I move amendment No. 6:
Before Section 14, but in Part III, to insert a new section as follows:
A barrister or solicitor, who actually practised his profession for not less than six years, shall not be ineligible for appointment as a justice by reason only of the fact that he is for the time being not practising his profession, if he holds for the time being an office in respect of which it was (at the time of his appointment thereto) required by statute that every person appointed thereto should be or should have been—
(a) a practising solicitor, or
(b) a practising barrister or a practising solicitor.
The object of this amendment is to provide that when the appointment of a district justice is being made, if there is a man in full time employment as an official, who has the qualifying period of six years, acting either as a solicitor or a barrister, he shall not be precluded from the appointment by reason of the fact that he is not practising at the time the vacancy occurs. An examiner of title in the Land Commission may be a solicitor or a barrister. He may have been six years practising but took an official post. The same would apply to county registrars. The object here is to enable the Minister if he thought fit to appoint any such persons district justices.
Mr. Boland
I think the position in the Land Commission is covered by the Land Act. I cannot see much objection to the amendment. I think all county registrars have been solicitors.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 7:—
In sub-section (1), line 7, to delete the words "sixty-five" and substitute the word "seventy."
I hope the Minister has no objection to my amendment. I think it is undesirable that district justices should be retirable at 65 when judges in the other courts are allowed to continue in office until 70. In fact, in recent years the Act was amended and the age extended to 72. The extension of the age limit in the case of judges in the High Courts, the Dublin Metropolitan Courts and in the County Borough of Cork was from 65. I see no reason why district justices should not be capable of carrying out their duties after 65 in the same way as other judges.
I support the amendment. I do not see any reason why a district justice is not likely to be as fit to carry out his duties at from 65 to 70 as any other official. In the case of a sheriff, an office that requires much more activity, the retiring age is 70. While I am not prepared to press the amendment, I strongly urge the Minister to consider it, and if he cannot accept it, to make some provision whereby a man who reaches 65, and is fit to carry on, should be allowed to remain at least until 70.
I would be utterly opposed to any discretionary power being given any Minister to allow any particular justice to remain on after a given age. The same rule should apply whether it is 65 or 70, and there should be no discretion whatever to allow a particular person to continue on, merely because he happened to be persona grata with some Minister or political party. I support the amendment. Presumably there is not much difference between the position of a district justice and a judge of the Circuit or High Court. I have already ineffectively drawn the Minister's attention to another matter. The Minister has the added power in connection with district justices, that he can in accordance with Section 7, to which I took strong objection on the Second Stage, appoint a judge of the High Court or the Circuit Court to inquire into the health of a district justice. If he has that power in this Bill then the retiring age should be 70. If, after 65 a man is not capable of carrying on then that power could be exercised.
I have no interest in this particular matter. I was surprised to hear the lawyers' views, in view of the fact that such large numbers of barristers are only partially employed in the profession.
None of us is looking for a job.
Apart altogether from that, there is a recognised rule in the public service—and in my opinion it is a very good rule—that all public servants should retire at the age of 65. I do not see why any exception should be made in the case of judges or district justices to that very proper rule. If we are to solve the problem of unemployment in this country—I do not say that we will solve it to any great extent by employing more of the legal profession on the bench—there must be a recognised rule in regard to the age of retirement from the public service and from public service companies. I fully support the present position. I hope the lawyer Deputies will not press this to a division. If they do, and the Minister stands over the 65 rule, I shall go out with the Government.
I would like to support the amendment submitted by Deputy Cosgrave. I am as interested in the workers as Deputy Davin. My experience is that when men retire at 65 they immediately enter into competition outside. I think the comparison made by him is not quite relevant in the case of district justices, or in relation to any possible solution of the unemployment problem. District justices are not made every day. Lawyers are not made every day. It is a difficult matter to get a good, sound lawyer and the Government should be fully aware of the position there in view of the costly litigation which has taken place recently involving the State in an expenditure of tens of thousands of pounds. If you have a man who knows his work you should keep him. There is nothing consistent in the action of a Government keeping a High Court judge on until 70 years of age and asking a district justice to retire at 65. This country is not composed of millionaires. It is a small country and it is a comparatively poor country. We cannot afford the luxury of retiring men at 65 years of age if at that point they are still competent to carry out duties which they have been carrying out for, possibly, 30 years previously. I think the amendment is a reasonable one, and I think there should be no difference of opinion on it. The Minister should see the force of the arguments submitted by the various Deputies in favour of the amendment. The amendment has been subscribed to by Deputy O'Connor, though he introduced that we thing called "discretion"—in certain cases the Minister could if he so desired, extend the time. That has been done in regard to the railways. There, men who have reached 65 have got an extension of time to 70 because of their usefulness and because of the manner in which they discharge their duties.
I could give you hundreds of cases of tradesmen having got extensions of anything from three to five years. I know a man who retired last week at 73 years of age. However, I think the less said about the railway, the better. It is a fact that the time has been extended. From the practical point of view, I prefer to employ a man at 50 years of age than to employ lads who are knocking around at 25 or 26. It is not a question of years. It is a question of hard work. It is a question of the stuff of which a man is made and the will power he has to carry out his duties faithfully and well. I think there is much to be said in favour of the amendment submitted by Deputy Cosgrave.
In order to keep ourselves right, I would inform Deputy Coburn that I myself am not very keen on this business at all. As a matter of historical accuracy, he voted for a measure passed through this House setting up a company called Córas Iompair Éireann. One provision in that measure makes it compulsory for all workers engaged in that industry to retire at 65. I moved an amendment on the Committee Stage for the purpose of applying a similar provision to the directors and it was turned down. It is correct to state that, with the exception of the directors, all other servants of the company are compulsorily retired at 65. Whenever the railway servants, however, are given an extension, they are given that extension only for a year and on the recommendation of the medical officer that they are physically fit.
And for three and four years.
There is no such thing as an extension for a period of years. The extension is from year to year on the recommendation of the medical officer.
From year to year in a succession of years.
I am not pressing my point. I do not claim to be as intelligent in matters of this kind as the lawyer Deputies, but I hope they will not press it to a division.
Where did Deputy Davin get the history of Ireland in which he read about Deputy Coburn voting for Córas Iompair Éireann?
He voted for sections of the Bill. He voted against the Second Reading, and we all know that. We had a general election on that.
We are getting somewhat away from the debate.
I wonder is Deputy Davin right in drawing an analogy between railway workers and lawyers. Railway work, as Deputy Davin knows, is laborious, heavy work. The work done by lawyers is purely intellectual. Anybody who knows the history of our legal profession knows the greatest judgments of all time were given by men past 65, past 70, and past 75.
The education has been improved since.
Probably Deputy Davin did not pick up that bit of history. He says the same rule should apply to all public servants. Surely, he is not serious in suggesting that there is an analogy between public servants and lawyers. Lawyers consider themselves quite young when they are appointed on the High Court Bench at 65. A legal training seems to have a peculiar effect; the training involved in it and their subsequent intellectual development has some reaction which seems to keep both their minds and bodies young and fresh. I think it would be fatal to throw out such a man at 65. Because of his experience he is a definite benefit to the community. There should be no discretion. The time limit should be the same for all. There should be no implication or suggestion of a possibility of wire-pulling in the administration of the law or in connection with those administering it. I think the Minister would be foolish in insisting on 65 in the case of district justices when other judicial appointments extend to 70. If anything, the district justice has an easier job. His court is one of summary jurisdiction. If there is any case to be made it is a case rather for shortening the age of retirement for High Court judges.
I wonder would you allow me through you, Sir, to put a question to Deputy Davin?
Would he be in favour of a Bill or Act which would provide that all Deputies and Senators should retire at the age of 65 and be ineligible for election after 65?
Would that not be a blessing?
I should like to have the Deputy's views on that subject. It would be giving practical effect to his own principles in relation to his own job in the House. There is no question of principle involved in this amendment. The real ground on which the amendment can be based is that district justices, in common with other judicial appointees, should be appointed after a fairly long period actively in practice. If that is so, then they will require a number of years before they can earn a judicial pension and the age of 65 would not normally allow them to earn that pension. That, I think, is really the only ground on which an amendment of this kind can properly be based.
In recent years there has been a tendency to appoint to the District Courts very young practitioners who have not, in my view, sufficiently long experience for these responsible positions. I think that is not right, because before a person is appointed to be a district justice he should have had far more than the statutory qualifications by way of experience. That is the only ground on which I support this amendment—in order that there shall be people appointed to the District Court bench after having had considerably more years of active practice than would merely qualify them for the position. If that is so, then by the time they reach 65, they would not have qualified for a pension.
Mr. Boland
As to the point Deputy Costello has made, the fact is that the tendency is quite the other way. It is only to-day that I happened to look at the list of names and the ages of those appointed district justices. I was looking at it to see the average age at which district justices were appointed. I found that in the early days up to 1930 several district justices under 30 years of age were appointed.
There has not been one of that age appointed under this Government. One was appointed at the age of about 33 and most of the others were 36, 37 and 40. Therefore, there is no foundation for Deputy Costello's statement. If the Deputy wishes, I can get him the age of every justice appointed and he will find that what I am saying is correct: that the average age of those appointed in the last 14 years is higher than it was under the last Government.
At the moment the position is that all justices, with the exception of those in Dublin City and Cork City, must retire at 65. I am proposing that the same rule shall apply to the cities, with the exception of those justices who at present are to retire at 70. In future, all district justices will retire at 65; that is, that district justices in Dublin and Cork will be put in the same position as the district justices in other parts of the country. There certainly was a case for it when the last Government decided on that rule because, although there may not be so much brain work as Deputy McMenamin suggests, there certainly is more physical work required from a district justice. He has to travel all over his district in all sorts of weather. I am sure that was in the mind of the Oireachtas when that was passed. It is well known that in the City of Dublin the strain on the justices is far greater than it is on country justices, but a country justice has to travel to all sorts of places in all kinds of weather.
They get plenty of fresh air.
Mr. Boland
I can see no case for the amendment. We did increase the age from 70 to 72 for High Court judges. I think that was a mistake. I think the age of 70 ought to be sufficient for High Court judges. I am putting all the district justices on the same footing. Deputy Cosgrave wants district justices, who at present must retire at 65, to retire at 70. Of course, I cannot agree to that.
I could not allow the Minister's statement with reference to the appointment of district justices during the earlier period of this State to pass. During those years the conditions were entirely different. When the District Courts were set up in 1923, a man who was appointed a district justice took his life into his hands. You had to get young men to do the work at that time. That was the position from 1923 to 1930. You could not ask elderly men to do it, or men who had passed the first bloom of their youth. The conditions were entirely different and they are changed now. It is not a matter of very great importance to compare what was done from 1923 to 1932 with the conditions from then until 1946. But the point must be stressed that the district justice appointed from 1923 onwards literally took his life in his hands.
Mr. Boland
I was replying to the suggestion of Deputy Costello. I did not give any reason. He was referring to the tendency now, from which I thought he implied that we were departing from the principle adopted before; that younger men were now being appointed. I did not say anything about the reason. All I am saying is that the tendency is the other way, namely to appoint older men and not younger men. Whatever the reason may be, that is the fact.
Could the Minister give any assurance that he will do something about the maximum number of years required for a full pension? The Minister told us that the average age of appointment is from 38 to 40. A justice must serve 30 years before he gets full pension; so that in the large majority of cases justices cannot get a full pension. The law provides that the full pension is given after 30 years. A justice does not get a chance to serve 30 years. I suggest to the Minister that, if he retains the age limit at 65, he at least should reduce the number of years required for the maximum pension to 25, so that the majority of the men appointed would have a chance of getting a full pension.
Mr. Boland
I said on the Second Reading I would look into that matter. I have been looking into it. On the whole, I think the pension conditions are not bad. Perhaps I can leave it open for some other time. I cannot do it under this Bill. I would have to consult other people before I could do anything about it. I think most of the justices get a fair pension, if not the full pension. Very few, I admit, will get the full pension. There is something to be considered there, but I cannot do it under this Bill. The average age of appointment, I think, would be about 40. That would mean that they would have only 25 years' service and that they could not get the full pension.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section put and agreed to.
Section 15 agreed to.
SECTION 16.
Mr. Boland
I move amendment No. 8:—
In sub-section (1), paragraph (c), line 28, to delete "sub-section (3)" and substitute "sub-sections (3) and (4)."
This amendment depends on amendment No. 9 being passed. This refers to cases where a district justice who was assigned to a particular area might wish to be considered for appointment as what was formerly an assistant justice, but will now be a full justice, who may be sent to relieve justices in other parts of the country, but whose headquarters will be in Dublin. It is doubtful whether we have that power now once a justice is appointed to a definite area. We want to make sure that if a justice asks to be appointed to one of these posts it should be in our power to do it.
Amendment agreed to.
Mr. Boland
I move amendment No. 9:—
Before sub-section (4), to insert the following new sub-section:—
(4) (a) Where a justice is permanently assigned to a particular district, the Government, upon his request, may, if they think fit, terminate such permanent assignment.
(b) Where the permanent appointment of a justice to a particular district is terminated under paragraph (a) of this sub-section, the Government may at any time thereafter assign him permanently to a particular district.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 16, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 17.
I move amendment No. 10:—
At the end of the section to add the words "and every such justice who shall on the 1st day of July, 1945, be temporarily assigned to the Dublin metropolitan district shall as soon as may be after the passing of this Act be appointed a Dublin metropolitan justice."
On the Second Stage I drew attention to what I thought was a lacuna in the Bill, that the Minister was to appoint the ordinary justice to each division from amongst the Dublin metropolitan magistrates. The first part of the section provided that the principal justice of each division should be a Dublin metropolitan magistrate. There are only three at the moment and there are only three divisions and I was anxious to ascertain where he was to get the other ordinary justices— what was the power.
I put down this amendment to find out how the Minister proposes to operate the machinery in Section 6 and also for the purpose of seeing if the promise he gave me on one, if not two, occasions would be carried out; that is, that the present assistant justices who were appointed for the Dublin District Courts would be appointed under this Bill.
Mr. Boland
This amendment is not necessary. That is the intention. Of course, the Minister does not make the appointment.
Where is the power to appoint a Dublin metropolitan magistrate?
Mr. Boland
The Minister for Justice assigns them to the area. The President actually makes the appointment on the advice of the Government.
Under what statute do you appoint a Dublin metropolitan justice other than the three who are there at the moment? They are not Dublin metropolitan justices; they are assistant justices.
Mr. Boland
They are appointed on the advice of the Government and assigned by the Minister for Justice.
Mr. Boland
As a Dublin metropolitan justice.
Is there a temporary appointment before that?
Mr. Boland
There is no temporary appointment. They are in an anomalous position as assistant district justices, but they are permanent and pensionable, and the intention is to assign them as Dublin metropolitan justices with the increased salary attaching to that position.
Is that set out in the terms of appointment?
Mr. Boland
I told Deputies that the Government advised the President to appoint justices and the Minister for Justice makes the assignment. Those people will be assigned to the Dublin courts.
But before he can be appointed as justice of a division he must be a Dublin metropolitan justice. I want to know how they become Dublin metropolitan justices. I do not care a farthing whether the Minister has this power. I merely direct his attention to a defect. The Minister may take advantage of that or not, just as he likes. I do not mind, but somebody may raise the point afterwards.
Mr. Boland
The Courts of Justice Act, 1928, sets out that an assistant justice shall be eligible to be appointed an ordinary justice.
I do not care a brass farthing whether the Minister has power or not. I am pointing out what I believe is a defect in the statute. I have done my duty. If the Minister has power, well and good, but if some person is sent to prison by one of these gentlemen, he may raise the point in the High Court that the justice was not properly appointed.
Mr. Boland
Very well. Leave it at that.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Sections 17, 18 and 19 agreed to.
SECTION 20.
I move amendment No. 11:
In line 21, to delete the words "a judge" and substitute the words "two judges."
This amendment proposes to have two judges instead of one reporting on a district justice. I spoke on this section on the Second Reading and I do not propose to repeat what I said then. The whole section is objectionable. The objection may be softened if there were two judges instead of one reporting on the conduct of a district justice. One judge may possibly be prejudiced and there will be a far greater degree of security and impartiality by two judges submitting a unanimous report.
Mr. Boland
I think one judge is quite sufficient. What the judge will be asked to do is to investigate the position of a district justice. The President will be asked to nominate a judge of the High Court to make an investigation into some matter affecting the health or conduct of a district justice. Deputy Costello, on an earlier stage, seemed to think that would worsen the position of district justices. I pointed out it would do no such thing, that under the law at the moment the position is that a committee consisting of the Chief Justice, the President of the High Court, and the Attorney-General will prepare a certificate and the Government, on that certificate, may dismiss a district justice. Under this proposal a district justice can be dismissed only by a resolution of both Houses. I think that is an added safeguard to the position of the district justice.
The proposal is that an impartial, competent person, like a judge, will inquire into whatever allegations may be made affecting the health or conduct of a district justice, if there is any doubt about it. This is giving an extra protection. Two judges would not be satisfactory; you would need three to have a majority. The judge will make a confidential report and, if there is no case, the matter will not be proceeded with. If the judge decides there is a case, the whole matter will be brought before both Houses. The position of a particular district justice was mentioned here and I would be very glad if I had the right to ask the Chief Justice to appoint a judge. The only way it could be dealt with at present would be to set up a tribunal of inquiry, such as we had recently. I think that is too cumbersome and not necessary. The provision in the section I would regard as a very good one. If anything, it provides an extra safeguard for district justices.
I cannot see why the Minister does not agree to this very reasonable amendment. In any circumstances, it is undesirable to have one man delivering a decision on another man who has almost equal status. There is only a question of making a report to the Minister and, in order that there might be no doubt as to the impartiality of that report, two men should be appointed to carry out the work. As Deputy Costello has stated, if there is only one man appointed to make the report, he might have a bias against the person upon whom he was reporting. It is not likely that you would get two men who would be similarly biased. I think the provision in this Bill is open to certain danger and the Minister would be well advised to accept the amendment.
Even though the provision in the section improves the present position as the Minister pointed out, the objection I have to it is that once the report is made, if that report is an adverse one, the Minister can hold the report over the head of the district justice and threaten to have a motion tabled in the Dáil and the Seanad to remove him from office. The fact that it improves the position in the earlier Acts does not mean that it is a good provision. If a district justice has the same tenure as a Circuit Court judge or a High Court judge, he should have the same rights and privileges. It is in my view a serious commentary on the system under which people are appointed as district justices, that because of a certain suspicion of them provision must be made for an inquiry of this kind. For that reason I support the amendment and oppose the section.
Mr. Boland
Suppose we do get an adverse report, as the Deputy suggests, one which we felt would justify us in going to the Dáil and Seanad to ask that the district justice should be removed from office, would it not be much better to have that report, let the district justice know that we got it and inform him that unless he resigned we proposed to take the necessary steps in the Dáil and Seanad to have him removed from office? I see nothing objectionable in that course. There is provision in another section, which enables a district justice to retire at an age earlier than the normal age of retirement. I think this section, instead of being a defect in the Bill, will be a great help. The position is that if a district justice does not resign after being requested to do so we can say to him, "Well, you will have to be removed from office." I think instead of this being an objectionable provision, as Deputy Cosgrave says, it is quite the reverse. If Deputy Cosgrave thinks over it, I think he will agree to that.
You might as well try to interfere with a Circuit Court judge or a High Court judge.
Mr. Boland
We cannot do that. They are in a different position. District justices have always been in a different position right from the start.
The fact that such a provision is in an earlier Act does not make it any more acceptable. The Minister has got a peculiar complex that everything that Deputy Costello did in the 1926 Act should be adhered to. Deputy Costello, or those associated with him, may have done their best according to their lights in the circumstances prevailing at that time but it does not follow that because it was done then it should be adhered to. In my opinion it is undesirable that district justices should labour under conditions whereby their conduct may be inquired into and reported upon by a single judge.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments Nos. 12 and 13 not moved.
Question proposed: "That Section 20 stand part of the Bill."
I want to register my protest against this section. I spoke, as I have already said, at length on the Second Reading Stage of the Bill in connection with this section and there is no point in repeating what I said. The Minister has just stated, however, that district justices were in a completely different position from other judges from 1924 onwards. He seems to regard that as a justification for this section. As Deputy Cosgrave has just stated, the mere fact that district justices were treated in an earlier Act differently from other judicial personages is no reason why that discrimination should be continued. Actually strong exception was taken by a variety of people to the provisions of the 1924 Act dealing with district justices.
The conditions which existed in 1924 when these provisions about district justices were inserted in the Act were entirely different from those which now exist. In 1924 the scheme had been in operation for only 12 months. It was a new scheme, an experimental judicial effort, something that this country had not before. This country had suffered from what was known as removable magistrates under the British. It was desired that these justices should not be removable, as far as it was possible to avoid that and it was hoped that, if the experiment proved a success, as it proved a success, they would be put on a parity and have the same constitutional position as Circuit Court judges and High Court judges. The District Court has proved to be a success and the Minister has gone a little further than the Act of 1936, but I objected to the provisions of the Act of 1936 when it was going through. In Section 19 of this Bill he purports to give the same tenure of office to District Court judges as High Court judges and circuit judges have. Having given them that concession in Section 19 with one hand, he takes it away with the other hand in Section 20, in which he gives this power to report on the conduct of a justice to a judge. I object to this section and register my protest against it as strongly as I possibly can.
Section put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 41; Níl, 23.
Tá
- Bartley, Gerald.
- Beegan, Patrick.
- Boland, Gerald.
- Boland, Patrick.
- Brady, Seán.
- Brennan, Martin.
- Brennan, Thomas.
- Breslin, Cormac.
- Briscoe, Robert.
- Butler, Bernard.
- Carter, Thomas.
- Childers, Erskine H.
- Colbert, Michael.
- Colley, Harry.
- Corry, Martin J.
- Crowley, Honor Mary.
- O'Briain, Donnchadh.
- O'Connor, John S.
- O'Grady, Seán.
- O'Rourke, Daniel.
- Ryan, Mary B.
- Derrig, Thomas.
- De Valera, Vivion.
- Fogarty, Andrew.
- Gorry, Patrick J.
- Harris, Thomas.
- Hilliard, Michael.
- Killilea, Mark.
- Kissane, Eamon.
- Lemass, Seán F.
- Loughman, Frank.
- Lynch, James B.
- McCann, John.
- McCarthy, Seán.
- MacEntee, Seán.
- McGrath, Patrick.
- Moylan, Seán.
- Sheridan, Michael.
- Smith, Patrick.
- Traynor, Oscar.
- Walsh, Laurence.
Níl
- Bennett, George C.
- Cafferky, Dominick.
- Coburn, James.
- Coogan, Eamonn.
- Corish, Brendan.
- Cosgrave, Liam.
- Costello, John A.
- Davin, William.
- Dockrell, Henry M.
- Dockrell, Maurice E.
- Doyle, Peadar S.
- Giles, Patrick.
- Halliden, Patrick J.
- Hughes, James.
- Keyes, Michael.
- McFadden, Michael Og.
- Mulcahy, Richard.
- Murphy, Timothy J.
- Norton, William.
- O'Sullivan, Martin.
- Pattison, James P.
- Rogers, Patrick J.
- Sheldon, William A.W.
Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Kissane and O Briain; Níl: Deputies P.S. Doyle and Bennett.
Question declared carried.
Sections 21 and 22, Schedule and Title agreed to.
Bill reported with amendments.
When is it proposed to take the Report Stage?
Mr. Boland
If there is no objection, perhaps the House would give it to me now.
I am prepared to give the Minister a present of it now.
Mr. Boland
I do not mind, but if I could have it now the Bill could go to the Seanad this week.
Very well, take it.
Agreed: That the remaining stages of the Bill be taken now.
Question—"That the Bill be received for final consideration"—put, and agreed to.
Question—"That the Bill do now pass"—put, and agreed to.
