73 / 266
ticularly advantageous position to understand the
needs o f particular localities and to advise the
Minister thereon and the powers o f the Minister
under these Sections should not be exercisable on
official advice alone.
S
ections
8
and
13.
The Council submit that there is no case for the
reduction in the number o f Circuit Judges from 10
to 9. The increase in the jurisdiction o f the Circuit
Court is bound to be followed by a great increase
in the number o f cases to be decided. This appears
to require an increase rather than a reduction in
the number o f Judges. The transfer o f jurisdiction
at the lower end to the District Court is unlikely
to compensate for the extra volume o f work re
sulting from the increase in the upper limit of
jurisdiction.
In the opinion o f the Council the present number
o f District Justices will be unable to deal with the
increased volume o f work arising from the increased
jurisdiction o f the District Court.
The Council strongly oppose the practice of
appointing :
(a)
temporary Judges and District
Justices and; (
b
) assistant District Justices whose
remuneration is lower than that o f an ordinary
Justice, as being contrary to the principle of the
independence o f the Bench. They submit that the
Bill should include a Section prohibiting such
appointments. The exercise o f judicial functions
by persons without security o f judicial tenure and
remuneration is contrary to the spirit of the Con
stitution and public policy. The following suggestion
is submitted for consideration by the Minister.
Power should be taken if necessary to appoint a
number o f permanent but unassigned Circuit
Judges and District Justices, with security o f tenure
and o f pay, with the first right o f succession in order
o f priority o f appointment to vacant permanent
assignments.
Every Circuit Judge and District
Justice should be appointed in the first instance on
this basis as a travelling member o f the Judiciary
with the obligation to do duty in any part o f the
country to which he may be sent from time to time
by the Minister acting on the advice of the ap
propriate Rules Committee. The proposal has two
advantages—(
a
) temporary arrears o f work could
be quickly dealt w ith ;
(b)
experience gained in
different parts o f the country should be valuable.
It is obvious that the proposed increase o f the
jurisdiction o f the lower Courts will result in con
gestion o f work which is against the public interest,
and the Council submit that instead o f reducing
the number o f Judges and Justices power should
be taken to appoint additional permanent travelling
members of the Judiciary so that the citizen will
not be denied his right to speedy justice.
S
ection
9.
Extension o f civil jurisdiction o f the Circuit
Court. The Council approve o f the extension of
the jurisdiction in contract and tort from £300 to
£600. They also suggest that the jurisdiction in
lunacy matters under Section 2 o f the County Court
Lunacy (Ireland) Act 1888 and transferred by Section
51 o f the Courts of Justice Act 1924 should be in
creased in the same proportion as the increise in
contract and tort. It has been stated that an ambig
uous position arises when the value o f the corpus
is within the jurisdiction and the annual value of
the property above it or vice versa. The position
should be clarified if necessary in this respect.
The Council oppose the extension o f the juris
diction in Section 9 (i) (
b)
relating to title to land and
section 9 (i) (
c
) in probate and equity matters. It is
considered that the present limits o f jurisdiction,
based on the value o f the corpus and the annual
value o f the lands, are adequate and that in some
parts o f the country the County Registrars’ offices
are insufficiently staffed on the‘equity side to deal
with the additional work proposed. There is at
present adequate and satisfactory machinery in the
Examiners’ office o f the High Court for dealing with
the work now proposed to be transferred.
S
ection
14.
The powers o f the Minister under this Section
should not be exercisable except after consultation
with the District Court Rules Committee for the
same reasons as those given in regard to sections
6, 7, 10, and 1 1 above.
S
ection
15.
The Council approve o f the increase in juris
diction proposed to be conferred by this Section
with the following additions :—
(a)
There is no logical reason for increasing
the jurisdiction o f the District Court in
contract without increasing it in tort and
it is suggested that the tort jurisdiction
should be increased to £25. It is frequently
the experience o f country solicitors that
clients with small claims in tort will not
incur the expense and delay o f a Circuit
Court action and that the retention o f the
present limit o f jurisdiction, having regard
to the change in the value o f money, is,
in effect, a deprivation o f justice in many
cases.