520 / 736
Killybegs
Kilmallock
Lucan-Doddsborough
Malahide
Maynooth
Millstreet
Mitchelstown
Moate
Monasterevan
Mountrath
Moville
Portarlington
Portlaw
Rathdrum
Rathluirc
Rosrrea
Rush
Skerries
Swinford
Swords
Tallaght
Thomasto.
Tullow
IN PARLIAMENT
Dail Eireann, 28<h April, 1970
Public Records
Mr. Bruton asked
the Minister for Justice
if he
has plans to expand the number of professional archival
personnel in the Public Record Office of Ireland and if
he has any plans to bring the Public Records (Ireland)
Act, 1867 up to date and in particular to allow for the
designation of the records of local government bodies
as public records.
Mr. Lenihan :
The question of making proper pro
vision for the preservation of public records has been
under active consideration in a number of Departments
for some time. As the Deputy will be aware, the Devlin
Review Group has since recommended that the Public
Public Record Office be split between the National
Library and the Land Registry. Pending a decision in
that regard, it is not possible to say what decisions will
be reached on the proposals set out by the Deputy.
As
interim arrangement, I have arranged for
the
strengthening of the Public Record Office staff and I
hope to appoint at least one graduate archivist shortly.
Mr. Bruton: When will
the
legislation be brought
up to date?
Mr. B. Lenihan: It is under very close consideration
at the present time.
Uniformity of Court Sentences
Mr. Bruton asked
the Minister for Justice
if any
meetings have been held between justices of the district
court with a view to achieving a reasonable degree of
uniformity in sentencing policy; if not, why; and if so,
with what results.
Mr. B. Lenihan: Eight statutory meetings of district
justices have been held since 1961 pursuant of section
36 of the Courts (Supplemental Provisions) Act, 1961.
The last meeting was held on 12th October, 1968. The
section empowers the Dresident of the district court to
convene meetings of
justices of the district court not
more frequently
than
twice
in one year,
to discuss,
among other things, "the avoidance of undue divergences
in the exercise bv the justices of the jurisdiction of that
court and the general level of fines and other penalties."
The subject of disparity of sentencing was listed bv
the president on the agenda for discussion at a meeting
held in 1963. at two meetings held in 1964. and not
since. Prior
to
the meeting
in November, 1964,
the
Minister
for Justice gave
a
formal address
to
the
justices, in which he referred to the wide disparity in
sentencing and to the need for discussion and clarifica
tion amongst the justices themselves on that subject.
I am informed that there has been a reluctance on the
part of the justices generally to have the subject opened
for discussion and the intentions of the statute in that
respect^ as passed by the Oireachtas have, in effect, been
disregarded.
I have had the matter under serious consideration
recently and I propose to take such steps as are available
to me to have the matter reopened.
Mr. Bruton: Would the Minister agree that there
should certainly have been a 'meeting since 1968 and
that there should be meetings on a much more regular
basis if we are to wipe out the occasionally scandalous
disparity between sentences imposed by district justices?
Mr. B. Lenihan: I was the Minister for Justice who
spoke to the justices about this matter in 1964. I agree
with the Deputy, but this is a very sensitive area, involv
ing the independence of the judiciary. That is why
it is rather difficult to frame the appropriate legislative
action to ensure what we all desire.
CIRCUIT COURT RULES (No. 1) 1970
These Rules deal with the procedure to be adopted
(a) Under Section 21
and Part VI ^ the Local
Government
(Planning and Develooment) Act
1963.
(b) Under Section 22 of the Landlord and Tenant
(Ground Rents) Act 1967.
These Rules will come into force on 5th October 1970.
Local Government
(Planning and Development) Act
1963
It will be
recalled
that Section ?'
™f
this Act
contains most elaborate provisions for the publication
of notice of the preoaration of the draft plan, and for
the consideration of objections to it.
Notice served before 5th October 1970 will be deemed
valid. An Appeal to the Circuit Court under Section 21
of
the Act, which
states
that
the
notice
shall
state that a copy of the draft plan may be inspected at
a stated place and at a stated
time during a stated
period of not less than three months, and that, nrovided
such draft plan includes any provision relating to the
preservation of a right of way, notice of such draft plan
shall be served on the owner and on the occupier of
land. Within 21 days of the exDiration of the stated
period, any person may appeal to
the Circuit Court
against the inclusion or variation in the proposed plan
of any matter previously mentioned. The Court,
if
satisfied that no public rifht of way subsists, shall so
declare, and the proposed inclusions will consequently
be omitted. This apneal shall be commenced by a Notice
of Motion in accordance with Form 1
in the Schedule
of Forms; the appellant shall be the plaintiff, and the
planning authority shall be the respondent.
Part VI deals
elaborately with
compensation
as
follows:—
Section 55 provides that the planning authority shall
be liable to pav compensation to a person the value of
whose interest in land has been reduced bv a decision
under Part IV of the Act refusing permission to develoo
or granting it subject to conditions. Section 56 excludes
condensation in certain cases: Daragraph ^a) of sub
section
1
seems at first reading to exclude compensa
tion in almost all cases for it reads "Compensation under
66