The Gazette 1967/71

I am informed that there has been a reluctance on the part of the justices generally to have the subject opened for discussion and the intentions of the statute in that respect^ as passed by the Oireachtas have, in effect, been disregarded. I have had the matter under serious consideration recently and I propose to take such steps as are available to me to have the matter reopened. Mr. Bruton: Would the Minister agree that there should certainly have been a 'meeting since 1968 and that there should be meetings on a much more regular basis if we are to wipe out the occasionally scandalous disparity between sentences imposed by district justices? Mr. B. Lenihan: I was the Minister for Justice who spoke to the justices about this matter in 1964. I agree with the Deputy, but this is a very sensitive area, involv ing the independence of the judiciary. That is why it is rather difficult to frame the appropriate legislative action to ensure what we all desire. CIRCUIT COURT RULES (No. 1) 1970 These Rules deal with the procedure to be adopted (a) Under Section 21 and Part VI ^ the Local Government (Planning and Develooment) Act 1963. (b) Under Section 22 of the Landlord and Tenant (Ground Rents) Act 1967. These Rules will come into force on 5th October 1970. Local Government (Planning and Development) Act 1963 It will be recalled that Section ?' ™f this Act contains most elaborate provisions for the publication of notice of the preoaration of the draft plan, and for the consideration of objections to it. Notice served before 5th October 1970 will be deemed valid. An Appeal to the Circuit Court under Section 21 of the Act, which states that the notice shall state that a copy of the draft plan may be inspected at a stated place and at a stated time during a stated period of not less than three months, and that, nrovided such draft plan includes any provision relating to the preservation of a right of way, notice of such draft plan shall be served on the owner and on the occupier of land. Within 21 days of the exDiration of the stated period, any person may appeal to the Circuit Court against the inclusion or variation in the proposed plan of any matter previously mentioned. The Court, if satisfied that no public rifht of way subsists, shall so declare, and the proposed inclusions will consequently be omitted. This apneal shall be commenced by a Notice of Motion in accordance with Form 1 in the Schedule of Forms; the appellant shall be the plaintiff, and the planning authority shall be the respondent. Part VI deals elaborately with compensation as follows:— Section 55 provides that the planning authority shall be liable to pav compensation to a person the value of whose interest in land has been reduced bv a decision under Part IV of the Act refusing permission to develoo or granting it subject to conditions. Section 56 excludes condensation in certain cases: Daragraph ^a) of sub section 1 seems at first reading to exclude compensa tion in almost all cases for it reads "Compensation under 66

Portlaw Rathdrum Rathluirc Rosrrea Rush Skerries Swinford Swords Tallaght Thomasto. Tullow

Killybegs Kilmallock Lucan-Doddsborough

Malahide Maynooth Millstreet Mitchelstown Moate Monasterevan Mountrath Moville Portarlington

IN PARLIAMENT Dail Eireann, 28

the Minister for Justice if he has plans to expand the number of professional archival personnel in the Public Record Office of Ireland and if he has any plans to bring the Public Records (Ireland) Act, 1867 up to date and in particular to allow for the designation of the records of local government bodies as public records. Mr. Lenihan : The question of making proper pro vision for the preservation of public records has been under active consideration in a number of Departments for some time. As the Deputy will be aware, the Devlin Review Group has since recommended that the Public Public Record Office be split between the National Library and the Land Registry. Pending a decision in that regard, it is not possible to say what decisions will be reached on the proposals set out by the Deputy. As interim arrangement, I have arranged for the strengthening of the Public Record Office staff and I hope to appoint at least one graduate archivist shortly. Mr. Bruton: When will the legislation be brought up to date? Mr. B. Lenihan: It is under very close consideration at the present time. Uniformity of Court Sentences Mr. Bruton asked the Minister for Justice if any meetings have been held between justices of the district court with a view to achieving a reasonable degree of uniformity in sentencing policy; if not, why; and if so, with what results. Mr. B. Lenihan: Eight statutory meetings of district justices have been held since 1961 pursuant of section 36 of the Courts (Supplemental Provisions) Act, 1961. The last meeting was held on 12th October, 1968. The section empowers the Dresident of the district court to convene meetings of justices of the district court not more frequently than twice in one year, to discuss, among other things, "the avoidance of undue divergences in the exercise bv the justices of the jurisdiction of that court and the general level of fines and other penalties." The subject of disparity of sentencing was listed bv the president on the agenda for discussion at a meeting held in 1963. at two meetings held in 1964. and not since. Prior to the meeting in November, 1964, the Minister for Justice gave a formal address to the justices, in which he referred to the wide disparity in sentencing and to the need for discussion and clarifica tion amongst the justices themselves on that subject.