Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Thursday, 26 Feb 1959

Vol. 173 No. 2

Committee on Finance. - Vote 30—District Court.

I move:—

That a supplementary sum not exceeding £2,250 be granted to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1959, for such of the salaries and expenses of the District Court as are not charged on the Central Fund (7 Edw. 7. c. 17, sec. 3; No. 27 of 1926, secs. 49, 50 and 66; No. 15 of 1928, sec. 13; No. 48 of 1936, secs. 51 and 77; No. 4 of 1946, secs. 35 and 36; No. 21 of 1946; No. 8 of 1951; and No. 32 of 1953) and for a capitation grant.

The Supplementary Estimate is required to meet the extra expenditure which has been necessitated by the appointment of three temporary additional justices to fill vacancies. The reason that these vacancies have not been filled on a permanent basis is that it is proposed later in the year to make an Order under Part V of the Courts of Justice Act, 1953, reducing the number of district justices. As the House knows, the salaries of permanent justices are charged on the Central Fund.

On this Estimate, I want to renew a protest against the appointment of temporary district justices. The very essence of our system of justice is that judges, minor and major, shall dispense justice while holding their positions under special tenure in order to preserve their independence. Temporary district justices have no security at all, and, in principle, it is a bad thing to be appointing temporary justices, particularly when they are dealing with criminal matters.

The whole basis of giving justices peculiar security of tenure is to ensure their independence vis-a-vis the Executive and to make certain that the humblest citizen coming before them can be assured of getting justice, whether he is in conflict with the Executive or not. If you appoint temporary district justices, there is the danger that these men are more or less on trial, in the knowledge that if they do not give satisfaction during the period when they are temporary justices, they are unlikely to be appointed permanent justices.

It has always been argued that it is inescapably necessary from time to time to appoint temporary district justices. I do not believe that is so. I believe with a little reasonable foresight and management, we could arrange that any person dispensing justice from the bench in this country would hold his position by the tenure which this House and the country have thought it proper to confer on judicial persons. I should like to hear from the Minister for Justice that it is his intention to provide in the future that the appointment of district justices on a temporary basis will stop and that we will appoint only on a permanent basis so that district justices may have that security of tenure in their office which makes them independent of the Executive in the dispensation of justice.

I notice that the sum of £250 is required for salaries of temporary additional justices. For what period would that cover the wages, salaries and allowances of temporary justices? I should imagine it would be for a very short time. It is well known that appointments of temporary district justices have been very frequent in recent times. I agree with the view that we ought to have permanent men and a system whereby any vacancy arising can be filled almost immediately, instead of the present system under which temporary district justices do not know where they stand. It is well known that they have a kind of roving commission in the country. They find themselves in one district one month and elsewhere the next. That is very unsatisfactory, particularly when we remember that there is an accumulation of work in the District Courts at present. Many interests depend on the disposal of that work and the making of decisions in those courts. That is why I think the Minister ought to devise a system whereby we could ensure that the work, particularly that which had accumulated, would be expedited. The appointment of temporary district justices for an unspecified period is not the way to meet this problem.

Major de Valera

I think the Minister has given a sufficient answer in the case of this Estimate. I understand that the reason for the continuing reappointment of temporary district justices is simply that the Minister anticipates a change in the District Court areas in the near future and that otherwise, if he did not adopt this course, we would have a redundancy. I think that is a very fair explanation and on that basis I can accept this Estimate.

I have a great deal of sympathy with the point of view expressed by Deputy Dillon. It is an extremely pernicious thing to drift into any habit of temporary judicial appointments. They are unavoidable in certain circumstances. Let us face the practical fact that for short periods you have to appoint a temporary justice in some capacity or other, but I think that should be controlled, as Deputy Dillon suggests.

Why is it unavoidable?

Major de Valera

Without going into all sort of details, I can foresee cases where a thing like that is unavoidable. For instance, take the case where a justice dies. The work must go on, but the people responsible for appointing justices want a little time to look around and make arrangements. It may be that an opportunity for some readjustment will come. There are all sorts of administrative reasons like that and, in a case like that, it would be unreasonable to insist that one did not make a temporary appointment.

While I agree completely with Deputy Dillon on the principle, I think it is a bad thing to drift into a state in which one is reappointing temporarily people who are already temporarily appointed. In the long run, that is a bad practice, and a dangerous one. If a policy like that were to be adopted it would eventually result in the best people not being available for appointment. If the road to the bench is through a temporary channel, the more suitable people will hesitate to take the risk and, not having been in the running at the temporary stage, they will be out of the running altogether when the permanent stage is reached, because the appointers would naturally incline towards the people who had actually done the work in the meantime. If that policy were to be adopted, in the long run, there would inevitably be a deterioration in standard. However, these questions are really beside the point at the moment but, as Deputy Dillon raised the principle, it is no harm to have it noted.

The Minister has stated that the intention is to reorganise the districts and, in the process of solving that administrative problem, the question of providing moneys for temporary justices arises. There can be no objection in this particular instance to doing what the Minister wishes. I do not think there is at the moment any particular dangerous infringement of the principle mentioned by Deputy Dillon.

I should like to ask the Minister one question: can he explain the relationship between a salary amounting to £250—I do not know how much a district justice gets per week—and £2,000 for travelling and subsistence?

To take the remarks of Deputy Rooney first, the Deputy was concerned about the appointment of temporary district justices and the fact that they might be sent here, there, and everywhere. The Deputy may not be aware of the fact, but there are such people as "movable justices" and the function of these justices is to go wherever a vacancy occurs through one cause or another—illness, holidays, or some other contingency of that nature. A temporary justice is usually appointed to a particular district in which a permanent justice has been operating but has fallen ill and will be unable to operate for a certain period; in that event, the temporary justice takes over and continues to operate until such time, and until such time only, as the permanent justice returns to work. I do not subscribe to the view expounded by Deputy Dillon that because a district justice is appointed in a temporary capacity only, he will not give of his best.

That is a paraphrase of my observations to which I demur.

I am satisfied, anyhow, that any person who applies for a post as a temporary justice will do the work as efficiently and as effectively as the permanent justice. He will not scamp the work because he is in a temporary capacity. Hope springs eternal, and the temporary justice will always have in mind the fact that, if he does the work efficiently and effectively, he will naturally be considered when the time comes to make a permanent appointment.

If he does his work as the Minister thinks he ought to do it?

But suppose I happen to be in the dock and I want him to acquit me of a criminal offence of having called a gentleman by the name of Oscar Traynor whatever I choose to call him, I may think the justice ought to do his work in quite another way. My belief is that he should be independent to do his work in whatever way he thinks is just.

I am prepared to believe anyhow—perhaps I am simpler than the Deputy—that he will do it as effectively and as efficiently as the permanent justice before whom the Deputy would rather appear.

The temporary justices for whom we are catering here are there merely because—in some cases, at any rate —some of the permanent justices have died. There are, I think, two cases in which death has intervened. In another case, there is illness. We are taking steps to reduce the number of districts from 30 to 25 and we are not prepared, therefore, to appoint any of these as permanent justices because they would ultimately become redundant when the number of districts is reduced. Were we to carry the total number of permanent justices— 30 at the moment—and subsequently five of them became redundant, the House would be perfectly correct in criticising me for allowing that situation to arise. I should certainly not be acting in the interests of economy. We are, therefore, appointing temporary justices to meet the situation that exists at the moment. As long as I can remember, temporary justices have been appointed from time to time. I do not believe anyone would expect us to appoint a permanent justice to do the work of a man who falls ill.

The Minister has his movables.

Even when we reduce the number to 25, the contingency of illness and death will still have to be met. Possibly in the case of death, we could appoint a permanent justice right away. Speed is important because the courts must continue to function and a man has to be replaced immediately. The question is: can we appoint a permanent justice within a short period of time and without giving to the appointment the consideration that should be given to it? I do not think we would be justified in making too speedy appointments. However, as I say it is not done regularly. We took our time about that and so far as the temporary justices are concerned, we are not anxious to appoint them, if it is possible to appoint a permanent justice.

In answer to the point made by Deputy Corish, it simply means that we are short of the sum of money that was estimated originally. We are short of that amount of money and we must secure that amount of money in order to ensure the payment of the salaries. The question of the payment of travelling expenses arises from the fact that the travelling expenses of temporary justices are paid in a different manner from those of permanent justices. The expenses of a permanent justice are paid only when he reaches his district. If he happens to live in Dublin and to be operating in Donegal, his travelling expenses do not begin until such time as he reaches his headquarters in his district, whereas the expenses of a temporary man begin from the time he leaves his home in Dublin, or wherever he lives, until he reaches the district in which he is operating.

I am not being critical of the £250. What is a district justice paid? About £25 a week, I think. That means for ten weeks' work he gets £250 and £2,000 is paid by the State in travelling and subsistence expenses. It may be perfectly all right, but it seems incongruous to me.

If the Deputy puts down a question on that point, I shall answer it in detail.

If the Minister is satisfied, I am.

I am satisfied with the position.

It could necessarily mean that a man would have to travel from Dublin or Cork to Donegal and back again.

If he happened to reside in Dublin or Cork, that is so.

Vote put and agreed to.
Barr
Roinn