Vol. 475 No. 6
2 Mr. O'Donoghue asked the Minister for Justice the number of habeas corpus applications before the High Court arising out of the improper composition of the Special Criminal Court between August and November 1996; whether any of the applicants have applied for legal aid; the cost to the State in this regard to date; whether the Cromien report has been implemented; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [5547/97]
I am informed that 15 persons have made application to the High Court for habeas corpus arising from the invalid constitution of the Special Criminal Court. One of these cases was heard in January 1997 by a divisional court of the High Court and in a reserved judgment delivered yesterday the court dismissed the application.
Requests for legal aid in the case of habeas corpus applications fall to be dealt with under the Attorney General's scheme which is not administered by the Department of Justice. I understand, however, that in the case already heard by the High Court, an application was made under the Attorney General's scheme and the court has recommended that the application be granted. I also understand a number of the other applicants have also applied to the court to have the Attorney General's scheme applied to their cases and the court has also recommended that their applications be granted.
I am informed that no costs have yet been paid under this scheme in defending the application. In so far as action on the report by Messrs. Cromien and Molloy is concerned, a series of measures relating to procedures and systems in the Department have been introduced. These include revised administrative procedures in relation to the implementation of Government decisions and the handling of correspondence generally.
So far as the Special Criminal Court is concerned, I informed the House on 19 November of changes made in the administrative system for dealing with these matters and I will deal further with this aspect of the matter when we come to Questions Nos. 20 and 48 on today's Order Paper.
The Minister has been unable to give specific figures in relation to the cost of these applications. The Department of Justice inquiry, which arose from the failure to delist Judge Dominic Lynch as a member of the Special Criminal Court, cost £11,887, excluding the printing costs which are not yet available. Will the Minister accept that, as a result of her failure to implement a Cabinet decision of 1 August 1996, taxpayers will be at a considerable loss? Will taxpayers be expected to pay the bill for her failure to do her job?
Any costs incurred by the Department of Justice or any Department of State will be met by the taxpayer, apart from those incurred by individuals. With regard to the Attorney General's scheme, the court has recommended that yesterday's application be covered. I understand that eight of the 15 applicants will be paid under the Attorney General's scheme which is funded by the taxpayer.
Will the Minister accept that the people concerned will be litigating their way around the courts for a long time after she has left the Department of Justice? Is there any question of the person or persons who was or were at fault being surcharged? Is it fair that the taxpayer should have to pay for a mistake of this magnitude when taxpayers entrusted those responsible positions to the person or persons who failed to carry out their duties responsibly?
I am not aware of any intention or system that obliges a civil servant or a Minister to pay a surcharge. A surcharge system applied at county council level in respect of zoning or planning permission. By making a decision on it counsellors could be surcharged. Since the foundation of the State I am not aware of any Minister who has ever been called on to pay the cost of a court case or costs in respect of water leakage in an office etc. I would be interested in hearing about cases where a Minister or civil servant had to pay because of a mistake in the way correspondence or any other matter was handled within the Department. If a person was found guilty of embezzling money etc. he or she would have to pay. However, I am not aware of any Minister who had to pick up the tab because of the failure to inform a judge of a certain matter. If the Deputy is aware of any such case I would be interested to hear about it.
Will the Minister accept that the essence of democratic accountability in the context of a mistake of this magnitude is that the person responsible should do the honourable thing and resign?
I will not resign. The report of the beef tribunal raised questions about the administrative role played by the former Taoiseach, Deputy Albert Reynolds, but he was not asked to pay the large costs of the tribunal. No former Minister was ever asked to pay for court cases arising out of decisions taken in their Departments. If a Minister was obliged to pay the costs in a case arising out of a decision or action in his or her Department no one would ever accept the job.
