The Gazette 1974

THE DISTRICT COURT

Changes which have affected the District Court

Transport:

By reason of the change in distribution

of population through the country it is accepted that

certain District Court sittings could be abolished, or the

number of sittings reduced, but in this respect, the

Socicty would like to have the views of the practitioners

in these specific areas, as appended hereto, noted. How-

ever, in relation to transport it should be noted that

while private motor cars and hackney cars are available

to most people now, they are costly and even where

they can be afforded, there is a substantial number of

people who may be obliged to attend Courts from time

to time and who must depend solely on public transport.

The greater part of public transport available emanates

from Dublin and provides transport between Dublin and

specific centres radiating from Dublin along the east

coast to the south, to the south-west, to the west and to

the north. In many instances there is no public

transport, which will provide a service travelling in an

east/west direction, or in the midland and western areas

will provide a service travelling north/south. There are

very many areas through the country where a person

dependent on public transport and wishing to attend,

particularly one of the suggested venues for the Circuit

Criminal Court, would be obliged to travel quite a

distance from his home by public transport to a centre

from which he could in turn find public transport

leading to the particular Court venue.

In many instances

the distance involved is substantial. One can instance,

as for example, a person resident in South Kildare area

and wishing to attend Portlaoise Criminal Court, would

be obliged by public transport to travel from Athy to

Naas by bus and from Naas to Portlaoise by bus, a'

distance of some fifty miles and impossible to achieve

in one day. There are many areas in a similar position.

Criminal Procedure Act, 1967, Summary Judgment

Rules and Changes in Enforcement of Court Orders:

While the introduction of the Criminal Procedure Act,

1967, has resulted in a saving in time, the tendency

recently has been for defendants in many cases to ask

for oral evidence on deposition. This request is becom-

ing more common and the number of cases in which

oral depositions will be called for, will increase in

future. This is partly by reason of the unsatisfactory

presentation on deposition of available evidence.

While the Summary Judgment Rules have resulted in

saving time, it must be remembered that a default

procedure was always available in the District Court

and that while the majority of Summary Judgment

cases do not now reach Court, the amount of Court

time saved in relation to the old default procedure is

generally not great. In so far as Enforcement of Court

Orders are concerned, the application to the Court for

Examination Orders takes up proportionally very little

time in most Courts through the country.

Increased Jurisdiction:

Inflation has to some extent

overtaken the advantages of the increase in the juris-

diction of the District Court and the number and

importance of civil actions being tried in that Court has

abated. In the type of case which now reaches the

District Court, the specialist witness is usually the

injured party's local doctor, or in so far as damage to

vehicles is concerned, the local garage proprietor. The

other witnesses are more often than not, a local mem-

ber of the Garda, who investigated the accident, the

plaintiff and defendant and their respective witnesses,

the majority of whom are people resident in the location

of the place at which the particular accident occurred

and as the District Court is presently constituted, are

usually within easy reach of the Court at which the

claim is heard. While at times it may be necessary t°

have a specialist medical adviser attend Court,

u s u a l l)

from the county hospital in the county where the

accident occurred and who may be obliged to travel

some distance to the particular Court, nonetheless)

t he cost of having that one specialist witness travel to

Court is far less than the cost of transporting all of the

other witnesses to a Court which may be quite som

distance away from the locality in which they reside'

with the consequent additional travelling expenses and

loss of their valuable time. Most people are now work'

ing a five-day week and accordingly the loss of a day

work to a person engaged in business on his own behalti

by being obliged to attend Court, is substantial. ^

saving in witnesses' time and of the expense of com-

pensating witnesses adequately for their loss through

attendance in Court, is a major factor in keeping tb

cost of litigationw ithin reasonable limits. Apart alto-

gether from this fact, many people are reluctant to

attend Court by reason of the loss of income which

they will incur. A witness obliged to attend Court b>

service of a witness summons is often a reluctant fit-

ness. He often tends in his reluctance and in his feeling

of frustration in being obliged to attend Court, when

111

his mind he has something far more important to do»

to be an unsatisfactory witness, who blames, not tb

system, but rather the particular lawyer who has bee

obliged to serve a witness summons upon him. Th

inconvenience caused to the public is therefore a veO

important aspect of the problem which exists in thi

respect, coupled with the difficulty of adequately com-

pensating witnesses in respect of their attendance

111

Court.

System of Districts:

There is no doubt whatever b

that the present system of having a Judge or Justic

permanently assigned to a district has worked perfectly

?nJ. there seems to be no reason to suggest that an)

change s'iould now take place. Later in the Committee'

recommendations, it is indicated that by reason of

Judge being assigned to a particular area permanently»

practitioners, knowing the particular Judge's requii"

ments, can practice in a more efficient and economic

way. Th at statement is perfectly correct. It is ab°

suggested that changing a Judge from one area

another, from time to time, would give practitioner'

greater experience in appearing before different Judg

and might provide more uniformity. It is difficult

understand the nature of the uniformity which woul°

result. Practitioners generally have the experience

appearing before many District Justices and Circuit

Court Judges and few mature practitioners lack expc

ence in this respect. It can be assumed that a particul

Judge will not change his outlook or attitude general

)

by reason of a change to a new area and it is not undei/

stood how any such change would result in uniformity

in the application of the law. The important aspect

a Judge being assigned to a specific area is that there

continuity and an efficient dispatch of business, b)

reason of the fact that far more often than appears

have been appreciated by the Committee it is necessaf)

to adjourn cases from a Court to the following Couy»

or from one venue to another venue. These are usual')

cases which are part heard, cases in which some out-

standing proof or some further evidence is required

111

100