127 / 736
Question :
To ask the Minister for Justice if he will state,
with
reference
to a
reply
(No.
38)
of 27th
February last concerning the 15,275 court orders
lodged with sheriffs and county registrars
for
execution in the year ended 31st July, 1967, the
number of such in respect of (a) land annuities,
(b) evictions and (c) hire purchase debts; or if
he will give such information as is available to
identify the nature of the claims in respect of
which such orders were granted; the number in
each class; and
the number
in
(i)
the High
Court, (ii) the Ciruuit Court and (iii) the Dis
trict Court.
—Richie Ryan
Answer :
With regard to (a) of the Question, the figure
of 15,275 quoted in my reply of 27 February re
ferred to
court orders only,
to which the Deputy's
Question was confined.
The number of Land Commission Warrants
lodged for execution in the year ended 31st July,
1967, was 27,964.
As regards the further information now sought,
the available statistics in relation to court orders
do not include a break-down of the categories of
claims or of the courts involved.
Question :
To ask the Minister for Justice if he is aware of
*he serious overcrowding on court days in the
Rathfarnham and Howth district court buildings;
and how
soon new court buildings will
be
provided at those places or other steps taken to
permit justice to be administrated in reasonably
tolerable conditions.
—Richie Ryan
Answer :
The increase in recent years in the population
of
a number
of Dublin
suburbs,
including
Rathfarnham and Howth has made it necessary
to
review
the suitability of arrangements for
sittings of the District Court. This review is being
carried out by my Department, and future arrange
ments for courthouses must await the results of
the review, which because of its complexity and
the need to consult various interests, will take
some time to complete.
I can accept that overcrowding may occur on
certain sittings days at Rathfarnham and Howth,
where the courthouses are exceptionally small.
Under an arrangement made in 1965 in Howth
to
facilitate
the public and
to
reduce over
crowding, cases for hearing arc divided into three
lists, two of which are taken ut fixed times in the
morning and the third at a fixed time in the
afternoon. In view of a recent complaint about
overcrowding, the numbers of cases in these lists
have already been reduced, and special Court
sittings have been provided to relieve the pressure
on the scheduled sittings.
I intend to introduce separate lists of cases,
with fixed times for each list, in Rathfarnham
Court, and this should reduce the number of
persons who find it necessary to be present in
Court at the one time. The position at both
centres will continue to be kept under review.
CASES OF THE MONTH
Infallibility of Medical Evidence
The appellant was charged with driving a motor
vehicle on the road while unfit to drive through
drink. The doctor who had examined him at the
police station after the offence gave evidence at
his trial. In summing up, the deputy recorder,
said "The evidence of any doctor, whether a
police surgeon or not, is to be accepted as the
evidence of a professional man giving independent
evidence with
the sole desire of assisting
the
court unless the doctor by his own conduct shows
that his evidence ought not to be accepted .
.
.
This, then, puts him into a position in which, in
the absence of reasons for rejecting his evidence,
his evidence ought to be accepted". The appellant
was convicted, and appealed that the summing up
on the medical evidence was under misdirection
since the use of the word "accepted" might have
given to the jury a false impression of the weight
to be given to the medical evidence. Held that on
the evidence, no
jury properly directed could
have found the appellant otherwise than guilty,
and the appeal would be dismissed.
(Regina v. Lanfear, [1968] 2 WLR p. 623).
Award of Cost to Acquitted Person
Lord Parker C.J. stated that the courts' attention
had been drawn to several recent cases in which
an application had been made on behalf of an
acquitted person for costs. The judge, recorder or
chairman of quarter sessions had awarded less
than the sum put forward as representing the
costs of the defence. Once, however, the judge
had exercised his discretion in favour of making
an award of costs there is no further discretion
to limit the amount awarded to a contribution,
such as a percentage of the amount asked for,
because the section refers
to payment of "the
expenses properly incurred" in carrying on the
defence. At the same time the acquitted person
is not entitled to anything more than the costs
105