74 / 736
Marts Act 1967 as a further example of the en
croachment by the executive on the jurisdiction of
the Courts. The Road Traffic Bill which is still be
fore the Oireachtas contained provisions enabling
the Minister for Justice to remit or mitigate cer
tain penalties imposed by the District Court. The
Council in a memorandum issued to the Press
suggested means whereby the desired result could
be achieved through judicial appeal machinery
without enabling the Department of Justice to
interfere with Court Orders. As a member of the
Oireachtas I believe that the Society can perform
a useful service for the public in examining and
drawing attention to provisions in bills submitted
by the various Departments of State which may
interfere with the democratic process by encroach
ing on the jurisdiction of the Courts. The ordinary
citizen, whose rights are affected, is unable to ap
preciate the consideration involved; outside the
representative bodies of the legal profession there
are few associations with the necessary knowledge
and resources to deal with such matters.
The Criminal Procedure Act 1967 made several
•important changes in the conduct of Court pro
ceedings. The Council drew attention to section
19 of the Bill when it was before the Oireachtas
whereby legal aid was abolished in relation to the
preliminary investigation of an indictable offence
unless the accused is charged with murder. This, in
the view of the Council, is a most retrograde pro
vision. The accused, at that stage, must now take
vital decisions as to the conduct of his defence
without professional legal aid, unless he has the
resources to obtain it himself. In my view this
provision strikes at the root of the legal aid system,
and no justification whatever has been advanced
for it. It was presumably inserted at the instance
of the Department of Finance because I cannot
imagine that the Department of Justice, which
was responsible for the introduction of legal aid,
would of their own accord seek to deprive an
accused person of one of its main advantages.
Another provision of this Act causes me person
ally much concern. It has always been a recognised
principle that the State in the conduct of a pro
secution in any Criminal Court may lay before
the Court all evidence whether written or oral,
which has a bearing on the offence with which the
accused is charged. The accused then has an O'P-
portunitv. through solicitors or counsel, of testing
the evidence by cross-examination. The advan
tage given to the accused by this procedure is an
important one. The State must lay the evidence
before the Court and it is for the representatives of
the accused
to cross examine. This advantage
seems to have been taken away from the accused
by sections 6 and 7 of the Act. The preliminary in
vestigation of witnesses on oral evidence is dis
continued and the procedure is substituted where
by the prosecutor must serve on the accused, inter
alia, a list of witnesses and copies of any written
information
on which
the proceedings were
brought. If the accused wishes, any witnesses may
be required to give oral evidence with the impor
tant provision that the witness will be treated as
the witness for the accused, and therefore subject
to cross examination by the State. I do not know
whether this vital change in the law was intended,
but it is certainly not in accordance with spirit of
the law which was an example of fairness to the
accused. In my view it is the duty of the State
whenever the accused elects to require oral evi
dence from a witness, to produce that witness as a
State witness for cross examination on behalf of
the accused if necessary. Under the procedure es
tablished by the Act, if my reading of it is correct
it can be argued that the accused has lost this im
portant right. If this is so. and if a Court of com
petent jurisdiction so decides, in my opinion the
Act should be amended to do justice to the ac
cused in the administration of justice.
International Bar Association
The Society will be host to an assembly of about
1,200 foreign lawyer and their wives for the 12th
conference of the International Bar Association at
the Royal Dublin Society, Ballsbridge, during the
week commencing July 8th. A committee under
the chairmanship of Mr. John Carrigan has been
working very hard at this project, which indeed
will absorb a great deal of the time of the Society's
staff during the next six months. At previous con
ferences in other countries representatives of the
legal profession from every part of the globe have
attended and the discussion have been concerned
with matters of vital interest to the legal profession
and its clients.
The following members addressed the meeting:
Desmond J. Moran, Gerard M. Doyle, Samuel
Crawford, Mr. and Mrs. St. J. Blake, John B.
Jermyn. Eunan McCarron, Franklin O'Sullivan,
John O'Donovan, P. C. Moore, Patrick Noonan,
Robert McD. Taylor, N. T. J. Spendlove, John
66