The Gazette 1967/71

damage which he did not cause. He also questioned the logic of allowing a person to recover compensation merely by reason of having suffered injury on the roads. He alleged that on the same reasoning, it should be possible to recover compensation, for example, in the case of bankruptcy. Admitting that his sympathies lay with the opposition, nevertheless he felt that the present litigation system is unsatisfactory, particularly in relation to evidence. He said that evidence taken at a hearing under the existing practice is very unreliable, having regard to the suddenness with which an accident occurs, the instant effect it has on those involved and the additional consideration that a lengthy period of time usually elapses before the taking of the evidence at the hearing. Mr. Fergus Armstrong, Mr. James O'Higgins (guests), Mr. Barry St. John Bowman, Mr. Colm Mannin and Mr. Colm McGeehan also spoke. LAW REFORM The Minister for Justice (Mr. Moran) intro ducing the vote for the Department of Justice in Dail Eireann on 21 November 1969 said inter alia: There is in my Department a long-term pro gramme of law reform. Much has already been done in the field of law reform but it is true to say that activity of this nature can be foreseen for many years to' come. I should like to mention those particular projects which have now reached an advanced stage and which are most likely to become matters of practical interest to this House in the near future- These include: (1) legis lation to deal with the jurisdiction of the Circuit Court and District Court and other related matters, such as the entitlement of solicitors to the Circuit Court bench and the right of solicitors to plead before every court in the land; (2) a Criminal Injuries Bill; (3) a Criminal Justice Bill; (4) a comprehensive Landlord and Tenant Bill; and (5) legislation to modernise practice in the registry of deeds. A number of other legislative proposals are also under active consideraion, including Bills to provide for the enforcement of foreign judgments and maintenance orders and a Bill dealing with the jury system, which will have regard to the recommendations contained in the reports of the committee on court practice and procedure on this subject. Of necessity, I have to deal with particular projects on a priority basis and having regard to what appear to me to be practical considerations. One of these considerations is, of course, that the strength of the skilled advisory staff assigned to law reform work is at all times severely limited.

Up to the present, the committee on court submitted nine interim reports. In addition, at my request, the committee have made availabl to me an extract from a further report which deals with the organi sation of the district court in Dublin city and county. In this extract the committee recommended unanimously certain changes in the structure of the district court in Dublin city and county. I have obtained the views of those affected, i.e. the jus tices concerned, the Incorporated Law Society, the Bar Counsel, the local authorities and the Garda Siochana on the recommendations and these are now being considered. Three of the interim reports of the committee on court practice and procedure deal with the jury system, and another deals with the question of increased jurisdiction for the district court and Circuit Court. Proposals for legislation are at pre sent being prepared on these and other related matters, and I shall submit these proposals to the Government shortly. Two reports deal with the reorganisation of the structure of the courts on the criminal side. I hope to introduce amending legislation, based on these reports, in due course. Further reports of the committee deal with the service of court documents by post, the fees of professional witnesses and proof of previous con victions. Provision is being made in the Court's Bill, to which I have already referred, for the service of court documents by post. The remain ing matters dealt with in these reports are being examined. On a previous occasion in this House I referred to my intention to examine, as a matter of urgency, the present law as to the grant of bail. I am satisfied that the position is highly unsatisfactory. The present state of the law, which arises from a Supreme Court decision in a constitutional case, is that every accused person must be granted bail unless there is substantial evidence that he would be likely to abscond or evade justice. This has contributed to a situation in which a great many persons awaiting trial—some of them with pre vious criminal records—avail themselves of bail to commit other crimes similar to those with which they are charged. In the 12 months ended 30th September, 1968, some 214 persons granted bail bv the courts committed while awaiting trial over 900 known fresh offences against property. This compares with 500 such offences by 150 persons in the preceding 12 months. In the light of the continued deterioration in the situation I am convinced that the law should 80 practice and procedure have