Vol. 361 No. 1
asked the Taoiseach in view of the publicly reported delays in the presentation of books of evidence in criminal prosecutions, if he will provide information on the extent of this problem and the number of cases thereby dismissed in the past 12 months; and the action he has taken to rectify this situation.
8.
asked the Taoiseach the measures being taken to ensure that books of evidence are produced on time in view of the circumstances surrounding a charge which was struck out in the Dublin District Court on August 9 because of the non-production of the book of evidence, and if he will make a statement on the matter.
I propose to take Questions Nos. 7 and 8 together.
I am informed by the Attorney General that he has made himself aware of the facts of this case. Counsel who was retained by the Director of Public Prosecutions to prepare the book of evidence in the case did not do so before the date fixed by the District Court for its production, and the district justice struck out the charge. Another counsel was then nominated by the Director and he has prepared the book of evidence. The Attorney General is satisfied that, contrary to some newspaper reports, no default can be attributed to any member of the Chief State Solicitor's staff in this matter. The General Council of the Bar of Ireland have informed the Attorney General that they are investigating a complaint of delay on the part of a member of the junior bar which they have received from relatives of the victim. Since a warrant has been issued for the arrest of the accused person in question, that prosecution is sub judice and it would not be proper for me to say anything further about that particular case.
There are no records of the exact number of cases which were struck out in the past 12 months for non-presentation of the book of evidence within the time fixed by district justices. However, I understand that in the great majority of such cases the book was subsequently presented and directions were given to recharge the accused person.
As for the preparation of books of evidence generally, I am informed by the Attorney General that there are a number of reasons why their preparation may be delayed on occasion. For example, gardaí or civilian witnesses whose evidence has to be included in the book of evidence may not be available through illnesses, absence on holidays or other cause, thus delaying the completion of the Garda file on which the book is based. There has also been a substantial increase in the number of criminal cases coming before the courts.
In addition, some time ago, there was a significant shortage of staff in the office of the Chief State Solicitor resulting from the effect of the embargo on recruitment to the public service. This was a cause of delay in the production of books of evidence by that office, which prepares the book of evidence in the great majority of cases in the courts in Dublin. Following representations by the Attorney General, the Government decided that the Minister for the Public Service should authorise an exception to the embargo and extra staff have, as a result, been appointed to the office of the Chief State Solicitor. This has produced a considerable improvement in the situation and a continuing improvement is anticipated when the recruitment of the balance of the authorised extra staff, now in progress, has been completed.
Apart from the action taken by the Government since these questions were tabled, what action did the Taoiseach and the Government take in the last two years to improve the output and efficiency of the office of Chief State Solicitor where books of evidence are prepared?
The efficiency of the office has improved considerably over that period but the details of that are a matter for a separate question.
I should like to put it to the Taoiseach that in the last week or so, since the question was tabled, an effort was made to increase slightly the level of staffing in the office but he ignored the warnings from the Judiciary about the delays in providing books of evidence over the last two years at least. Will the Taoiseach make a statement in relation to the sad and tragic event which resulted in a person charged with murder being released from our courts because the book of evidence could not be produced?
I have just made that statement.
The Taoiseach has not clarified the matter. Will he inform the House why the accused in this case was not arrested following his release and recharged?
The matter is sub judice.
Does the Taoiseach recall that in March Deputy De Rossa brought to his attention the staffing problem in this office and that he replied that the number of solicitors employed in the Dublin District Courts section of the Chief State Solicitor's office on 1 January 1981 was 13 and on 1 January 1985 was seven? What steps did the Taoiseach take when this grave matter was brought to his notice, a problem that resulted from this crude embargo that everybody has drawn the Taoiseach's attention to? What steps did the Taoiseach take to ensure that the problem was corrected?
I have already answered that question. Authority has been given to recruit additional staff despite the embargo.
That has been done since this incident occurred but is the Taoiseach aware that this is a direct result — as the Taoiseach admitted in his reply — of Minister Boland's crude embargo system which is having similar results in many other areas of the public service? Will the Taoiseach lift the embargo system which is causing these problems in many areas?
The position is a bit more complex. There was a reduction in the number of law clerks available and as a result some solicitors undertook the work of law clerks and barristers were brought in to undertake the work of solicitors. The position now is that an addition to the number of staff has been authorised and they are being recruited.
I should like to put it to the Taoiseach that if he, and the Government, had ensured that the level of staffing in the office of the Chief State Solicitor was up to the required standard this problem would not have developed. Therefore, the Government must accept responsibility for the tragic position that resulted following the striking out of the charge by the district justice.
As the Deputy would know had he listened to my reply, that is absolutely incorrect. The problem did not arise from problems in the office of the Chief State Solicitor but arose because counsel were not ready with their part of the work.
I should like to put it to the Taoiseach that the district justice deferred for one month the presentation of the book of evidence. What action was taken by the office of the Chief State Solicitor to ensure that the book of evidence was produced within that period? It was nothing short of negligence on the part of the Government, the Taoiseach and the office of the Chief State Solicitor that action was not taken to ensure that within the month granted by the district justice the book of evidence was prepared. Surely somebody in the Taoiseach's Department, if not himself, or somebody in the office of the Chief State Solicitor should have taken steps to ensure that the book of evidence was produced after that month. It was nothing short of a disgrace that that was not done and it represents total negligence on the part of somebody.
Had the Deputy listened he would have heard my reply to that, which was that the Attorney General was satisfied that, contrary to some newspaper reports, no default can be attributed to any member of the Chief State Solicitor's staff in this matter. The problem arose in relation to counsel preparing the book of evidence. Every effort was made to get that done on time. It was not done on time and certain consequences have followed from that.
May I ask the Taoiseach——
I am moving on to the next question.
——because of the public interest in this case, when did it become evident to the Taoiseach——
——and to the Chief State Solicitor that the book of evidence would not be ready? At what stage during that month was it evident that the book of evidence would not be available? Was it just discovered on the morning of the court that the book of evidence was not available? Surely some action should have been taken by somebody with responsibility to ensure that the book of evidence would be available and that the prisoner would be charged with the offence for which he was arrested.
I have already answered that question.
The Taoiseach did not answer it.
I answered it several times.
Deputy Hyland will have to restrain himself.
I will restrain myself, but the reply is totally unsatisfactory.
I am calling Deputy De Rossa.
Public confidence in the courts has been totally undermined as a result of that episode.
Will the Taoiseach clarify whether or not the counsel he referred to, who is being blamed for this error, was acting on behalf of the Chief State Solicitor's office, the Director of Public Prosecutions or the defence? He was probably acting for the prosecution. This arises from the fact that the Chief State Solicitor's office is short of staff and is gradually being reduced in staff.
We are getting into argument.
Could the Taoiseach also indicate whether or not the Chief State Solicitor's office will be restored to the staffing level that existed in 1981?
That is another question.
The Taoiseach has already said that additional staff are being appointed. Could the Taoiseach say how many and if the staffing strength will be restored at least to the 1981 level?
An increase in the number of assistants and staff in the office from 26 to 32 has been authorised.
Answer the first part.
The Taoiseach did not reply to the question about the counsel.
I am not responsible for that and I am calling the next question.
It is important to know this.
(Limerick West): He does not want to answer.
