The Gazette 1952-1955

tions. It would be out o f place to discuss in public,

the amendments made by the Government, beyond

saying that they do not in their entirety meet with

the Council’s approval. However, something has

been accomplished and it need not be hoping for too

much when I say that the successors o f that Govern

ment and of this President, may be associated with

the passing of legislation only too long overdue.

Jurisdiction o f the Circuit and District

Courts.

ince

November, important changes have been made

in the jurisdiction o f the Circuit and District Courts.

Your Council was consulted before the Act affecting

those changes became law and was, I think, alive

to the rights and the interests of solicitors in putting

our observations and suggestions before the Govern

ment.

The question o f costs applicable to the

reconstituted Courts received very close attention

from the sub-Committee appointed by the Council,

and if the scales finally settled, are not what the

profession hoped for—and in the matter o f costs

they rarely are—the fault lies not with your repres

entatives, but with others associated with Rule-

making Committees who do not seem to appreciate

the fact that our profession shares with all sections

o f the community the enormous increase in the cost

o f living and in the employment o f labour without

as yet having received commensurate increases in

their own remuneration.

Audience o f Solicitors in Central Criminal

Court.

immediate predecessor won for us the right to

appoint two members to the Superior Courts, Rules-

making Committee—a privilege o f which this Coun

cil took speedy advantage when nominating one of

its members, Mr. Ralph Walker, with Mr. James J.

Hickey. That our choice was a wise one is exempli

fied by the fact that they recently overcame oppos

ition on that Committee to the appearance of

solicitors as advocates in the Central Criminal Court

in cases involving persons without the means to

employ Counsel. For their efforts in thus preventing

what might amount in many cases to a denial of

justice to an accused person, they are entitled to

the best thanks, not only o f this Council, but o f the

profession as a whole.

Stamp Duties on Property.

promised

relief in the rates o f stamp duty applic

able to houses purchased without the benefit o f a

Government grant, must be a matter o f gratification

not only to our profession, but to the public. The

former Minister for Finance when referring to this

matter in his Budget Statement, recognised the

anomaly by which a purchaser acquiring an older

type o f house had to pay ad valorem duty, in the

case o f an Irish citizen, at 3% , whereas the purchaser

of a new house qualified for a Government grant

got the benefit of a special rate o f duty at 1% . By

way o f comment, may I suggest that this circum

stance acted as an encouragement to purchasers to

build with the aid o f a Government Grant, while

suitable premises were available, though subject to

the higher rate oi duty at 3% . Has this resulted in

over-building ? I think it has. Large areas extending

from Dublin on all sides are being developed, or

maybe over-developed, creating many problems

particularly in the matter o f transport to the work

shop and to the school house. This is o f course

merely my private view, and strictly speaking, it has

nothing to do with my duty in presenting this

report.

Revision o f Sentences by Minister for Justice.

is not without reluctance that

now mention a

subject to which perhaps undue prominence has

been given, touching the powers o f the Minister

for Justice to defer the execution o f warrants in

cases o f a criminal nature, and to exercise his

powers o f remission o f disqualification imposed on

drivers following convictions under the Road

Traffic Act o f 1933. My reluctance arises from the

fear that my remarks may be taken to be partisan

criticism—such is not the case.

No particular

Minister and no particular Government is here

referred to. Clearly Section 23 o f the Criminal

Justice Act, 1951, gives power to the Minister to

consider petitions and to exercise clemency in

proper cases. We o f the solicitors’ profession know

only too well that there are cases in which the

exercise o f the Minister’s powers may be right, and

justified by the particular circumstances o f the case,

but surely public uneasiness that these powers are

being too widely used should be allayed. In some

parts o f the country it is felt that the normal processes

o f the law are being ignored and that cases which

should be dealt with on appeal in the Circuit Court,

are made the subjects o f appeal to the Minister under

the provisions o f the Act o f 1951 already referred to.

The ultimate effect of such a belief may be to devalue

the standing of the Courts in question, as well as

the services rendered by those administering the

law in these Courts. It is not out o f place, therefore,

to suggest that much harm can follow from public

misconception o f the Minister’s powers and rights

in matters o f this sort.

I must concede that I have here touched only lightly

on the many activities o f the Council, but if Provi

dence spares me to address you again in November,

I hope to inform you fully on certain matters now

only in the process o f development. That every