Dáil Éireann Debate, Tuesday - 7 November 2017
1219. Deputy Maurice Quinlivan asked the Minister for Employment Affairs and Social Protection the reason her Department did not follow the established protocol of seeking an adjournment when a social welfare case for prosecution has an appeal pending in regard to a case (details supplied). [46162/17]
Amharc ar fhreagraMy Department’s policy in relation to appeals to the Social Welfare Appeals Office (SWAO) and cases being considered for prosecution has not changed. Where my Department’s Prosecution Service is advised of a pending appeal, the State Solicitor conducting the case will advise the Court and agree to an adjournment, if so determined by the Court. In the absence of any notice of appeal, it is open to the defendant to petition the Court in a similar manner.
In the case referred to by the Deputy, the Prosecution Service was not aware that a second appeal had been made to the SWAO sometime after a first appeal was unsuccessful. The second appeal was also unsuccessful. I also understand that the defendant in this case sought and obtained an adjournment of proceedings which is their right. The State Solicitor did not object to the adjournment being granted.
The assessment of the Prosecution Service is that the existing practice was followed in full. Had the Department been notified of the second application to the SWAO, the State Solicitor would have been so advised and sought the Court’s permission to adjourn proceedings.
I hope this clarifies the matter for the Deputy.
