103 / 328
the courts, with the view to seeing whether or not
the cost of litigation could be reduced for litigants.
I hope that committee will be set up shortly and
I think we can be reasonably hopeful that arising
out of its work some reduction in legal costs
generally may be able to be made.
MR. SHERWIN : There is a need for some sort of
scale because I had a case where I got a bill for
£40.
AN LEAS-CHEANN COMHAIRLE :
Perhaps
the
Deputy will put a question ?
MR. SHERWIN :
Is the Minister aware that I got
a demand for £40 and when I went to the Taxing
Master, it was reduced to
£2.0
? Not everyone is
aware of the Taxing Master and therefore the
simple people are taken advantage of.
MR. M. F. MURPHY :
Will the Minister indicate
what action is to be taken by a person who feels
he has been charged excessively for a particular legal
business he has had, let it be a law case or a payment
for the discharge of equities, title or any such
incidental matters, the conveyancing of land or
premises ? What steps is he to take if the bill of
costs frightens him, as in some cases it does, if he
believes it is excessive ? I should like the Minister
to make a statement on that matter.
MR. HAUGHEY : There are two main avenues of
approach open to him, if he feels he has been
charged in this way. Firstly, as Deputy Sherwin
mentioned, there is the Taxing Master. A client
can always ask to have his bill of costs taxed and
there is a procedure set out for that and then the
correct fees will be determined by the Taxing
Master. Alternatively, if it is not a matter which
comes within the ambit of the Taxing Master, one
of the courses open to the client is to refer the
matter to the Incorporated Law Society which has
general jurisdiction over the behaviour of solicitors.
MR. SHERWIN : This is an important matter."
(Ddil Debates,
15th February, 1962.)
MEDICO-LEGAL SOCIETY OF IRELAND
Mr. Justice Walsh delivered a lecture on the
" Preliminary Investigation of Indictable Offences "
to the Medico-Legal Society in the Royal Hibernian
Hotel, Dublin, on Thursday, 22nd February, 1962.
The learned lecturer traced the history of justices
of the peace and of the grand jury since the Middle
Ages; he pointed out that there were about 20,000
justices of the peace in England, most of them
laymen, who were assisted by their clerk who was
a trained lawyer. Their main purpose as regards
indictable offences was to hear the evidence put
forward by the prosecution and to decide whether a
prima facie
case had been established to return the
accused for trial to a higher court. For a long time
counsel for the accused could not examine witnesses
without leave, the investigation could be held in
private at the discretion of the magistrates and only
after 1848 did a prisoner become entitled to get
copies of the indictment and lists of prosecution
witnesses. Since 1924 these investigations were now
held in public before a trained lawyer, the District
Justice. The learned lecturer then reviewed some
recent decisions arising from the power of a District
Justice to return the accused for trial or to refuse
informations
in
a
preliminary
investigation—
Attorney-Generals. CoLleary (1935—69I.L.T.R. 233)
The State (Attorney General)
v.
Judge Roe (1951
I.R. 172) and The People
v.
Boggan (1958 I.R. 67).
The lecturer then compared the Continental inquis
itorial system, and the Irish accusatorial system and
suggested that the Continental system was not
suited to the Irish temperament. Mr. Justice Davitt
pointed out
that
the preliminary
investigation
provided a screening where the accused was informed
of the nature of the case he would have to answer
and was confronted with the prosecution witnesses
whose evidence, taken down in writing, could not
subsequently be altered;
these were invaluable
safeguards. Mr. Edward Fahy, B.L., stated that
there were unwarrantable delays in the District
Court, due, in his opinion, to the archaic system of
taking depositions by long hand; more Justices
should be appointed in Dublin, because justice, to
be effective, should be speedy.
Some system of
recording device for depositions should be con
sidered.
Mr. Herman Good stated that in his
opinion a decision of a Justice was a judicial
determination. Skilled personnel should be employed
in taking depositions, as at present much un
necessary matter was inserted.
Mr. Justice Kenny suggested that depositions in
the District Court could be taken in the form of
sworn affidavits. Dr. Hickey (State Pathologist),
Mr. O'Donovan (Chief State Solicitor), Mr. Eoin
O'Mahony, B.L. and Mr. T. D. McLoughlin also
spoke.
Mr. Justice Walsh, in replying to the discussion,
favoured affidavit evidence provided the accused
was entitled to hear and see the witnesses first; he
thought the best recording processes were either
the dictaphone memo-belt or the shorthand machine
which could not be altered. The lecturer thought
that all preliminary investigations should be in
private unless the defence specifically requested them
to be in public. Mr. Justice Murnaghan, President
of the Society, presided.
THE DUBLIN SOLICITORS'
BAR ASSOCIATION
A joint meeting was held with members of the
Belfast Solicitors' Bar Association at Dundalk,
95