363 / 736
damage which he did not cause.
He also questioned the logic of allowing a person
to recover compensation merely by reason of
having suffered injury on the roads. He alleged
that on the same reasoning, it should be possible
to recover compensation, for example, in the case
of bankruptcy.
Admitting that his sympathies lay with the
opposition, nevertheless he felt that the present
litigation system is unsatisfactory, particularly in
relation to evidence. He said that evidence taken
at a hearing under the existing practice is very
unreliable, having regard to the suddenness with
which an accident occurs, the instant effect it has
on those involved and the additional consideration
that a lengthy period of time usually elapses before
the taking of the evidence at the hearing.
Mr. Fergus Armstrong, Mr. James O'Higgins
(guests), Mr. Barry St. John Bowman, Mr. Colm
Mannin and Mr. Colm McGeehan also spoke.
LAW REFORM
The Minister for Justice (Mr. Moran) intro
ducing the vote for the Department of Justice in
Dail Eireann on 21 November 1969 said inter alia:
There is in my Department a long-term pro
gramme of law reform. Much has already been
done in the field of law reform but it is true to
say that activity of this nature can be foreseen
for many years to' come. I should like to mention
those particular projects which have now reached
an advanced stage and which are most likely to
become matters of practical
interest
to this
House in the near future- These include: (1) legis
lation to deal with the jurisdiction of the Circuit
Court and District Court and other
related
matters, such as the entitlement of solicitors to
the Circuit Court bench and the right of solicitors
to plead before every court in the land; (2) a
Criminal Injuries Bill; (3) a Criminal Justice Bill;
(4) a comprehensive Landlord and Tenant Bill;
and (5) legislation to modernise practice in the
registry of deeds.
A number of other legislative proposals are
also under active consideraion, including Bills to
provide for the enforcement of foreign judgments
and maintenance orders and a Bill dealing with
the jury system, which will have regard to the
recommendations contained in the reports of the
committee on court practice and procedure on this
subject. Of necessity, I have to deal with particular
projects on a priority basis and having regard to
what appear to me to be practical considerations.
One of these considerations is, of course, that the
strength of the skilled advisory staff assigned to
law reform work is at all times severely limited.
Up
to the present, the committee on court
practice and procedure have
submitted nine
interim reports. In addition, at my request, the
committee have made availabl to me an extract
from a further report which deals with the organi
sation of the district court in Dublin city and
county.
In
this extract the committee recommended
unanimously certain changes in the structure of
the district court in Dublin city and county. I have
obtained the views of those affected, i.e. the jus
tices concerned, the Incorporated Law Society,
the Bar Counsel, the local authorities and the
Garda Siochana on the recommendations and
these are now being considered.
Three of the interim reports of the committee
on court practice and procedure deal with the jury
system, and another deals with the question of
increased jurisdiction for the district court and
Circuit Court. Proposals for legislation are at pre
sent being prepared on these and other related
matters, and I shall submit these proposals to
the Government shortly.
Two reports deal with the reorganisation of the
structure of the courts on the criminal side. I hope
to introduce amending legislation, based on these
reports, in due course.
Further reports of the committee deal with the
service of court documents by post, the fees of
professional witnesses and proof of previous con
victions. Provision is being made in the Court's
Bill, to which I have already referred, for the
service of court documents by post. The remain
ing matters dealt with in these reports are being
examined.
On a previous occasion in this House I referred
to my intention to examine, as a matter of urgency,
the present law as to the grant of bail. I am
satisfied that the position is highly unsatisfactory.
The present state of the law, which arises from a
Supreme Court decision in a constitutional case,
is that every accused person must be granted bail
unless there is substantial evidence that he would
be likely to abscond or evade justice. This has
contributed to a situation in which a great many
persons awaiting trial—some of them with pre
vious criminal records—avail themselves of bail
to commit other crimes similar to those with which
they are charged. In the 12 months ended 30th
September, 1968, some 214 persons granted bail
bv the courts committed while awaiting trial over
900 known fresh offences against property. This
compares with 500 such offences by 150 persons
in the preceding 12 months.
In the light of the continued deterioration in
the situation I am convinced that the law should
80