asked the Minister for Justice in view of the recent Supreme Court decision in the case of the State (Clarke v. Roche if he can inform the House of the number of cases pending before the courts including those adjourned or under appeal which will now have to be struck out; the steps he has taken to update the 1851 Petty Sessions Act, and if he will make a statement on the matter.
Private Notice Question. - Supreme Court Decision on Summonses.
So as to put this matter in perspective I think I should go back to the High Court decision of March last — the State (Clarke) v. Senezio. In layman's language what the High Court decided was that the issue of summonses by computer was invalid in so far as the court clerk issuing the summonses did not personally receive the complaint on which the summons is based and that he did not personally consider the justification for the issue of a summons. Two things happened at once. The first was to appeal the decision. The other was to change the procedure for computerised summonses so that from then onwards the two requirements of the judgment were met. That happened on the very afternoon that the judgment was handed down.
The judgment of the Supreme Court on the appeal was delivered last Friday. Apart from confirming the specific decision of the High Court, the Supreme Court raised a completely new issue, namely, whether the court clerk could issue a summons at all against the background of the provisions in section 10 of the Petty Sessions (Ireland) Act, 1851. The court offered the view that he could not and that the statutory law would need to be changed so as to allow him to do so. I may add that this view was obiter but, naturally, it carries considerable importance and clearly must be acted upon as soon as possible. The view was also expressed that if the statute law was changed in this way the question of a constitutional challenge would not arise. The Supreme Court judgment clearly calls for an urgent review of the law relating to the issue of summonses. That review commenced immediately on receipt of the judgment and the Government have now approved in principle a short Bill which I intend, subject to the agreement of the Whips, to initiate this week. The purpose of the Bill is to amend the law in such a way as will allow the service of summonses in the District Court as an administrative arrangement as suggested by the Supreme Court. Deputies will appreciate that it would not be appropriate to discuss the provisions in any further detail since the text will be circulated in the next day or two. Should this Bill be introduced as planned the House will have an opportunity to debate the issue in full.
As to what I might call the logistics of the question, it is not possible to provide the kind of statistical information sought in the question in the time available and to provide it at all would, it seems to me, require the diversion of such staff resources as would be counter productive. Suffice it to say that I accept, as do the Government, that the effects of the Supreme Court judgment — and here I distinguish it from the related High Court judgment — would give rise to serious problems in relation to the striking out of cases by district justices on foot of summonses issued by computer, unless the law were changed as soon as possible. In the alternative, serious difficulties and waste of resources could arise if methods — other than legislation — were to be sought to overcome the implications of that judgment. It is for that reason that we will be asking the Houses of the Oireachtas to pass the urgent legislation.
Finally, also so as to get matters into perspective, I should point out that substantially the problem arises only in Dublin city and county. In that area there is a total of approximately 115,000 summonses issued for hearing on various dates up to April, 1987. Of these, 75,000 are in respect of parking offences.
The Minister is telling us we are to have more emergency legislation rushed through this House within the next few days. We are already rushing through an extradition Bill and we have just rushed through the Single European Act. Do this Government not plan ahead or do they not have any administrative machinery? Do they not plan such things in advance rather than rushing them through the House?
Last Friday I made a statement and highlighted this problem following the Supreme Court judgment. I said that the administration of the drink and driving laws was thrown into chaos in Dublin and I called on the Minister for Justice to take immediate action to restore the proper and effective administration of the law, particularly in relation to drunk driving cases, and many other cases as well.
A question, please, Deputy.
The Minister's response showed either that he did not understand the full import of the judgment——
Ask a question, please.
(Interruptions.)
The Deputy should ask a question.
——or else he is attempting to misrepresent the real position. I asked the Minister if he was aware of the decision given on 13 May by the Supreme Court in the case of Lynch v. Ballagh concerning similar judicial functions. It was a second warning about this matter but nothing was done at that stage.
The Deputy must ask a question.
Why did the Minister not take action following the warning given in the Supreme Court last May? Why has he been in open conflict with the lawyers over the weekend? It now transpires that the lawyers were right and the Minister was wrong.
The Deputy should confine himself to a question.
Will the Minister apologise publicly to these lawyers and admit he got things wrong and that he is about to ask the House to help him put it right?
I do not accept the implications of any of the questions raised by Deputy Woods nor do I accept either the implications or the thrust of much of the arguments he seemed to be attempting to develop in the course of his questions and interspersed statements. Of course, as I pointed out yesterday at lunchtime during a radio interview, I regret that Deputy Woods did not see fit to treat us all to the benefit of his considerable erudition in these matters last March when the High Court decision was made. Had he been in a position to do that we might have saved ourselves the trouble, expense and the effort of appealing the matter to the Supreme Court.
You are the Minister.
(Interruptions.)
That is a novel approach.
Deputy Woods is a grand man for bellying out the sails of his indignation.
Answer the question.
Order, please.
Had I been in that position we would not have bothered to to to the Supreme Court, and if things were as Deputy Woods seems to suggest they should be we would not need a Supreme Court to deal with these matters.
The Minister has made a mess of it.
The fact is that immediately on receipt of the judgment of the High Court I took steps to rectify the situation taking account of the judgment given and I proceeded to appeal the case to the Supreme Court. In the interval, as I again pointed out both last Friday and yesterday, we were working on a further courts Bill which is in the course of preparation at the moment and which will deal with some of the issues raised in this case.
I do not intend in this House to make any apology to anybody outside the House whom I have not offended. It may be that there are people outside this House who, like Deputy Woods, interpret disagreement as an offensive thing, but I do not think it is the case in this instance. The matter has been dealt wit very expeditiously. The judgment of the Supreme Court became available last Friday. I had the draft of a Bill before the Government this morning, the Government have agreed the matter in principle and, subject to agreement between the Whips, we will have the Bill in the House this week. I do not claim any credit for being a sprinter, but I think the footwork was fairly fast.
The Minister did not answer my question. I asked if he was aware of the Supreme Court decision made on 13 May 1986. The Minister knows this is relevant but he is trying to avoid the issue.
The Deputy must ask a question.
I asked a question but the Minister did not answer.
The Deputy must not make statements.
The Minister is trying to suggest this is a new issue and that the matter is simply an obiter. May I refer the Minister to the statement by Chief Justice Finlay? He said:
I am satisfied that under the terms of section 10 of the 1851 Act it is an inescapable conclusion that the issue of a summons upon the making of a complaint was a judicial as distinct from an administrative act.
In view of such a clear statement from the Chief Justice, what confidence can the public have when the Minister's considered statements, even as late as last night, were so obviously wrong? Because of the Minister's negligence we have no option but to agree yet again to more ill considered and rushed legislation——
The Deputy will have an opportunity to make statements later. He cannot make them now.
Will the Minister answer the question I asked about the decision made on 13 May, if he is aware of that decision and if he considered its implications? Does he have any estimate of the many thousands of cases which will have to be set aside as a result of this decision?
All court decisions relevant to the preparation of legislation are taken into account. I do not intend swapping obiters with the Deputy across the House, I will simply remind the House that the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case in question is peppered with very clear statements. There is another one which I am tempted to read to the Deputy because he does not seem to have got past the pages where the quotation he has just given was to be found. I find it rather strange that last Friday the Deputy — I will not say quite rightly because I do not believe he does these things in the proper manner — was urging on me, to put it mildly, to take action immediately. This afternoon when I tell him I am taking action immediately he is complaining about it. There does not seem to be much consistency in that method of procedure——
Because of the confusion and repeated denials.
(Interruptions.)
Order, please.