The Gazette 1964/67

District Court that the upper limit for the new jurisdiction, i.e., £500, be adopted and for the following reasons :— 1. The District Court meets a public need for inexpensive litigation. 2. It meets a public need for speedy litigation. 3. It has, since increased jurisdiction was con ferred upon it by the Courts of Justice Act, 1953, functioned well and smoothly and is completely up-to-date in its business. No arrears of any kind have accumulated. 4. The fall in the value of money and the general increase of the amount of money in circulation have raised the practical ceiling of jurisdiction enormously. 5. The District Court sits throughout the year and this continuity makes for rapidity in the disposal of legal business. Of particular note are the observations of Mr. Justice Kenny in his dissenting report in which he states (inter alia) : 'Our system of Government and all our funda mental rights are based on the administration of justice according to law and not according to the views held by the person hearing the case as to what the law should be. An indi vidual who brings a claim for £100 has the same right to have his case decided according to law as has the individual who brings a claim for £10,000. Speedy, summary or rough justice is usually injustice.' ROAD TRAFFIC ACT 1961 The Department of Local Government made a statement as of October, 1966 which covers the position as at 15th October, 1966 on this subject and supersedes all previous statements issued by the Department on the subject. The paper refers to the extent to which the Road Traffic Act 1961 is enforced, particulars of the orders, regulations, bye-laws and rules made there under, and particulars of orders, etc., made under the Road Traffic Act 1933 which have not been revoked. For members engaged in Court Practice this document should prove a very useful reference for road traffic cases. ROAD TRAFFIC BILL 1966 This Bill was introduced by the Minister for Local Government and ordered by Dail Eireann to be printed on 21st June, 1966. It is now available from the Government Publication Sales Office, G.P.O. Arcade, Dublin 1, price 2/6. An

explanatory memorandum to the Bill states that the main objects of the Bill are as follows :— (a) to ensure a higher standard of roadworthiness or vehicles and their equipment and to im prove the effectiveness of enactments pro tecting public roads from damage (Part II); (b) to secure better standards of driving and driving instruction and to modify the existing provisions relating to disqualifications for driving (Part III); (c) to extend and amend the law relating to speed limits (Part IV); (d) to modify the law in relation to serious driv ing offences and, in particular, to recast the law on driving while under the influence of drink or a drug so as to make it an offence to drive or be in charge of a vehicle while there is present in the body a quantity of alcohol such that the concentration of alcohol in the blood, then or within three hours, will exceed 125 milligrammes per 100 milli- litres (Part V); (e) to amend in certain respects the law on compulsory motor insurance (Part VI); and (f) to amend in certain respects the law relating to the control and operation of public ser vice vehicles and the regulations of traffic (Parts VII, VIII and IX). LEGAL AID ACT WORKS OUT AS DEAD LETTER An act, passed two years ago, to enable success ful opponents of legally aided litigants to recover costs from the legal aid fund has worked out in practice as almost a dead letter. Despite the generous intention expressed in the title to the Act, its provisions are so restrictive and its interpretation by the courts had been so unbending, that only a few litigants are deriving any benefit. The purpose of the Legal Aid Act, 1964, says the title, is "to provide for the payment out of the legal aid funds of costs incurred by successful opponents of legally aided litigants." Yet Section I of the Act declares that no order shall be made for costs incurred in a court of first instance, such as a County Court or the High Court, unless the unassisted party can show that he would suffer "severe financial hardship." An indication of how effective the Act has been in curing the injustice of the successful opponent having to pay the costs of defending an action brought against him because of the facilities of legal aid can be seen from an examination of claims so far. 79