The Gazette 1986

INCORPORATED LAW SOCIETY OF IRELAND GAZETTE

Vol. No. 80 No. 1

JANUARY/FEBRUARY 1986

Comment. . .

In this issue .

LAW REFORM COMMI S S I ON — A NEW TERM

Comment

3

T HE opportunity of the expiry of the present term of the Law Reform Commission to review its perform- ance should not be missed. While criticism has been expressed in these pages previously on the methods of operation of the Commission it would be wrong to blame the Commission for its apparent lack of success, if 'success' is to be judged by the volume of legislation introduced or enacted as a result of its deliberations. It is clear that the lack of any satisfactory arrange- ments for the presentation to the Oireachtas of draft legislation recommended by the Commission has been a flaw in the working of the Commission. Operating, as it does under the aegis of the Attorney General, whose department has of course no facility for the intro- duction of legislation into the Oireachtas, the draft legislation proposed by the Commission must be adopted by the relevant Government department before it can find a place in the legislative treadmill. Many of the topics so far covered in the Commission's published reports fall within the jurisdiction of the Dep- artment of Justice, and it is well known that the Depart- ment itself is generating a very substantial programme of legislation which does not encourage optimism that there will be early introduction of many of the Commis- sion's legislative recommendations. It is also clear that the adoption by a Government department does not lead to rapid introduction of the measure because further consultation within that department and with other departments then takes place. This to a large extent is giving the departments a further 'bite-at-the-cherry' because they have already had an opportunity of commenting on the Commission's work- ing papers. With hindsight, it must also be said that the prog- ramme of law reform contained in the Commission's first programme was almost certainly too large and, to some extent at least, was responsible for the slow prog- ress of the Commission during its earlier years. It might be more satisfactory if a much shorter programme of reform were to be prescribed for the next Commission, when the views of the Commission as to what areas it should look at might be given greater weight, so that the Commission could achieve its more modest targets within a shorter time scale. The question of whether the Commission should con- tinue to operate its previous system, of relying for the production of its working papers exclusively on its own (cnnlinued on page 18) 3

Brussels Convention on Jurisdiction and Enforce- ment of Judgements

5

Practice Notes

9

Suppose he never commits the Crime

13

High Court Non-Jury Actions Listing Procedure . . .

17

Crossword

19

A Limitations Conundrum

21

Correspondence

27

Medico-Legal Society

29

Professional Information

30

Executive Editor: Editorial Board:

Mary Buckley William Earley, Chairman John F. Buckley Gary Byrne Geraldine Clarke Charles R. M. Meredith Michael V. O'Mahony Maxwell Sweeney

Liam O hOisin, Telephone 305236 Turner's Printing Co. Ltd., Longford

Advertising: Printing:

The views expressed in this publication, save where other wise indicated, are the views of the contributors and not necessarily the views of the Council of the Society. The appearance of an advertisement in this publication does not necessarily indicate approval by the Society for the product or service advertised. Published at Blackball Place, Dublin 7.