The Gazette 1976

J UNE /J U LY 1976

GAZETTE

an application of the basic prin- ciples of justice inherent in the proper course of the exercise of the judical function. Mr. Justice Gannon quashed all of the orders made by District Justice O'Reilly, but upheld the conviction made by District Justice Kennedy. Upon appeal to the Supreme Court, in which Judgment was given on the 18th day of March, 1976, it was held that all convic- tions should be quashed. The full Supreme Court reserved their reasons for a later time. The State (Anthony Foran) v. D. J. Thomas P. O'Reilly, The Governor of St. Patrick's Institution, & Ors; The State (John Healy) v. Ditto; The State (John Healy) v. District Justice Kennedy, The Governor of St. Patrick's Institution & Ors. — 18 March, 1976. NATURAL JUSTICE Order of Certiorari granted against Social Welfare Deciding Officer who deliberately fails to observe the principle of Natural Justice. The Prosecutor, aged 39 years, a married man with a family of five children whose ages ranged from 4 to 14 years had always been in gainful employment (save for a very short period) until the 1st day of June, 1975, when he became un- employed. Since then he received Pay Related Benefit under the Social Welfare Acts, and sub- sequently unemployment benefit. On the 27th day of February, 1976, when he called to the Labour Exchange at Werburgh Street he was handed a Notice of Disallow- ance which stated that it had been decided by a Deciding Officer that Unemployment benefit was not payable to him. At no time was the Prosecutor given any notice of the intention of the Labour Exchange the servant or agent of the Defen- dant, to disallow him the un- employment benefit as would have enabled him to have made repre- sentations in his own defence, nor was he in fact given any oppor- tunity of making any representa- tions in his defence. The Prose- cutor stated in an Affidavit that without unemployment benefit he had no means of support whatso- ever for his wife and his family, consequently his family and he must prepare for a very much reduced standard of living and indeed prospects of great hardship. In his Affidavit the Prosecutor stated that he had been informed by his legal advisers that the func-

tions and powers conferred upon the Defendant and his duly appointed deciding officers by sec- tion 42 of the Social Welfare Act, 1952, were of a Judicial nature and that the purported decision to dis- allow him benefit constituted a denial of natural and constitutional justice and was a serious infringe- ment of his constitutional rights as an Irish Citizen. Upon Motion on behalf of the Prosecutor the President of the High Court granted the Con- ditional Order of Certiorai against the Minister for Social Welfare to send the said decision and all records and entries relating thereto before the Court for the purposes of quashing the same. This Conditional Order was granted on 1st day of March, 1976. On the 15th day of March, 1976, by Consent Mr. Justice Butler made absolute this Conditional Order of Certiorari. The State (Frank Crummey) v. The Minister for Social Welfare & The Attorney General — No. 70 S.C. — 1976. A Dublin High Court judge on 8th April, 1976, expressed the view that the hours during which a solicitor may see a prisoner on remand in Mountjoy Prison on weekdays were not reasonable and suggested that the Dublin solicitors, the Bar Association and the authorities should resolve the matter among themselves on a reasonable basis rather than ask him to make a formal ruling. Mr. Justice Butler, was being asked by Mr. Patrick McCartan, a Dublin solicitor, to make absolute a conditional order already ob- tained by him against the governor of the prison directing that he be allowed see prisoners between 6 and 8 p.m., on the grounds that it was not always possible for him to get to the prison before 5.30 p.m. Adjourning the application, by consent, until May 3, for mention, Mr. Justice Butler said he had read the affidavits of responsible mem- bers of the solicitors' profession, assisting the State in its criminal business, and asked: "Should they not be accommodated reason- ably?" Mr. Justice Butler said that in view of the affidavits of five solici- tors the present attitude of the authorities would appear, prima facie, to be unreasonable. CRIMINAL LAW Protest over jail visits

time the Solicitors had withdrawn the co-operation from the opera- tion of the regulations under the Criminal Justice (Legal Aid) Act, 1962, and this was known to the Distirct Justice. He adjourned the matter to the 6th day of January, 1975, and subsequently to the 13th day of January, 1975, and then to the 29th day of January, 1975, on none of which occasions any Solicitor appeared. The District Justice thereupon proceeded to try and sentence both of the accused. The accused Heafy did not apply for Legal Aid under the provisions of the Act either on the occasion of his conviction or on the occasion of his sentence, nor was Legal Aid granted. On the 7th day of February, 1975, the Prose- cutor Foran applied for and ob- tained Three Conditional Orders of Certiorari directed to District Justice O'Reilly in respect of each of the three orders of convictions of the Prosecutor which had been made on the 29th day of January, 1975. On the 21st day of February, 1975, the Prosecutor Healy applied for and obtained a Conditional Order of Certiorari in respect of the three Orders of District Justice O'Relly made on the 29th day of January, 1975. On the 4th day of March, 1975, the Prosecutor Healy applied for and obtained a Con- ditional Order of Certiorari in respect of the order made by Dis- trict Justice Kennedy on the 15th day of January, 1975. Upon Motion on behalf of both the Prosecutors to have the Con- ditional orders made absolute it was held by Mr. Justice Gannon as follows:— 1. Having granted a Legal Aid Certificate under the provisions of the Criminal Justice (Legal Aid) Act, 1962, a Trial proceeded with in the absence of Legal Represen- tation is not conducted in due course of Law as required by Article 38.1 of the Constitution and a con- viction resulting from such a Trial should be quashed. 2. An accused has no basic natural or Constitutional right to be informed of the procedures open to him under the Criminal Justice (Legal Aid) Act, 1962. 3. The said Act does not create any rights nor confer any entitle- ment on an accused person to be represented in Court by a legal practitioner. 4. In order that a Trial may be conducted in due course of law within the meaning of Article 38.1. of the Constitution there must be

12