The Gazette 1967/71

Question : To ask the Minister for Justice if he will state, with reference to a reply (No. 38) of 27th February last concerning the 15,275 court orders lodged with sheriffs and county registrars for execution in the year ended 31st July, 1967, the number of such in respect of (a) land annuities, (b) evictions and (c) hire purchase debts; or if he will give such information as is available to identify the nature of the claims in respect of which such orders were granted; the number in each class; and the number in (i) the High Court, (ii) the Ciruuit Court and (iii) the Dis trict Court. —Richie Ryan Answer : With regard to (a) of the Question, the figure of 15,275 quoted in my reply of 27 February re ferred to court orders only, to which the Deputy's Question was confined. The number of Land Commission Warrants lodged for execution in the year ended 31st July, 1967, was 27,964. As regards the further information now sought, the available statistics in relation to court orders do not include a break-down of the categories of claims or of the courts involved. Question : To ask the Minister for Justice if he is aware of *he serious overcrowding on court days in the Rathfarnham and Howth district court buildings; and how soon new court buildings will be provided at those places or other steps taken to permit justice to be administrated in reasonably tolerable conditions. —Richie Ryan Answer : The increase in recent years in the population of a number of Dublin suburbs, including Rathfarnham and Howth has made it necessary to review the suitability of arrangements for sittings of the District Court. This review is being carried out by my Department, and future arrange ments for courthouses must await the results of the review, which because of its complexity and the need to consult various interests, will take some time to complete. I can accept that overcrowding may occur on certain sittings days at Rathfarnham and Howth, where the courthouses are exceptionally small. Under an arrangement made in 1965 in Howth to facilitate the public and to reduce over crowding, cases for hearing arc divided into three lists, two of which are taken ut fixed times in the morning and the third at a fixed time in the

afternoon. In view of a recent complaint about overcrowding, the numbers of cases in these lists have already been reduced, and special Court sittings have been provided to relieve the pressure on the scheduled sittings. I intend to introduce separate lists of cases, with fixed times for each list, in Rathfarnham Court, and this should reduce the number of persons who find it necessary to be present in Court at the one time. The position at both centres will continue to be kept under review. Infallibility of Medical Evidence The appellant was charged with driving a motor vehicle on the road while unfit to drive through drink. The doctor who had examined him at the police station after the offence gave evidence at his trial. In summing up, the deputy recorder, said "The evidence of any doctor, whether a police surgeon or not, is to be accepted as the evidence of a professional man giving independent evidence with the sole desire of assisting the court unless the doctor by his own conduct shows that his evidence ought not to be accepted . . . This, then, puts him into a position in which, in the absence of reasons for rejecting his evidence, his evidence ought to be accepted". The appellant was convicted, and appealed that the summing up on the medical evidence was under misdirection since the use of the word "accepted" might have given to the jury a false impression of the weight to be given to the medical evidence. Held that on the evidence, no jury properly directed could have found the appellant otherwise than guilty, and the appeal would be dismissed. (Regina v. Lanfear, [1968] 2 WLR p. 623). Award of Cost to Acquitted Person Lord Parker C.J. stated that the courts' attention had been drawn to several recent cases in which an application had been made on behalf of an acquitted person for costs. The judge, recorder or chairman of quarter sessions had awarded less than the sum put forward as representing the costs of the defence. Once, however, the judge had exercised his discretion in favour of making an award of costs there is no further discretion to limit the amount awarded to a contribution, such as a percentage of the amount asked for, because the section refers to payment of "the expenses properly incurred" in carrying on the defence. At the same time the acquitted person is not entitled to anything more than the costs 105 CASES OF THE MONTH