asked the Minister for Justice if he will introduce amending legislation in regard to the operation of the Courts (No. 3) Act, 1986; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Amendment of Courts (No. 3) Act, 1986.
12.
The Courts (No. 3) Act, 1986 was drafted to deal specifically with defects identified in the summons procedure by the Supreme Court in a judgement last December. The provisions of the Act take account of the Supreme Court judgement and specific suggestions made by the Supreme Court. I am assured that these provisions are sound in law and that there is no reason why they should not operate. I am, however, aware that some district justices have doubts about the new procedures and are not operating them. It appears that the problem can be resolved only by having the Act tested in the High Court. I understand that there are a number of test cases awaiting hearing and that it is hoped to have them taken quickly. Only when that has been done would any question of amending legislation arise.
On a point of order, may I ask why, when I attempted yesterday to raise this very matter by way of an Adjournment debate, I was told that it could not be discussed or raised in the House because it was sub judice? Now we find the Minister making a statement on this identical question with supplementary questions bring freely permitted.
I could have had no knowledge as to what the Minister might say in this House.
But, a Cheann Comhairle, you know what the question being asked is and that was precisely the question I sought to raise on the Adjournment and I was ruled out of order on the ground that the matter was sub judice, because the very cases the Minister in his reply indicated were pending. There cannot be chalk for one and cheese for another and I have to protest.
Is the Minister aware that summonses have been applied for and issued with dates which pre-date the passing of this legislation on 19 December 1986 and has he authorised that procedure?
I am aware that the situation is very unsatisfactory at the present time. The Director of Public Prosecutions has been unable to bring successful proceedings in a number of District Court cases because of the non-operation of the Act by one or other Justice. He has applied to the High Court for orders a certiori against the Justices concerned. The cases are expected to come before the High Court very shortly and the Deputy will appreciate that I have no control over the speed with which the High Court will proceed to hear these cases. I can only express the hope that the High Court will deal with the matter very promptly for us and if amending legislation is required at that stage we will introduce that legislation immediately.
Is the Minister aware that, despite the assurances that were given in this House when we were debating this legislation, a member of the Garda Síochána of the rank of superintendent or chief superintendent applied on 23 December to the clerk of the Dublin Metropolitan District Court area to have 80,000 summonses issued. The garda in question was not the complaining member and he did not identify, as required by law, the respondent in each case. Is the Minister aware of that? Has he authorised that procedure and what is he going to do about it?
I am not so aware and I have nothing whatsoever in my brief to inform me on this subject.
We were told specifically that it would be retrospective.
I shall inquire into it for Deputy Harney and will be in touch with her in this matter.
Is the Minister aware that the leader of the country's largest Garda organisation has described the present situation regarding the issuing of summonses as a fiasco? Would the Minister not agree that a far simpler method of dealing with the matter, rather than awaiting a certiori proceedings and yet further High Court complications, would be to bring in a short amending Bill to remedy the situation? Does he propose to do that?
I am aware, as Deputy Taylor suggests, of what the president of the Garda representative association said on the matter. I have already mentioned to the House that I am assured by my Department that the provisions of the Courts (No. 3) Act of 1986, which was drafted to deal with the defects identified by the Supreme Court in its judgement of last September are sound in law. I am advised that that is so. The matter is being tested and I would hope tested shortly. Then, if amending legislation is required I shall go ahead with it.
I must now come to deal with questions nominated for priority.