The Gazette 1967/71

Marts Act 1967 as a further example of the en croachment by the executive on the jurisdiction of the Courts. The Road Traffic Bill which is still be fore the Oireachtas contained provisions enabling the Minister for Justice to remit or mitigate cer tain penalties imposed by the District Court. The Council in a memorandum issued to the Press suggested means whereby the desired result could be achieved through judicial appeal machinery without enabling the Department of Justice to interfere with Court Orders. As a member of the Oireachtas I believe that the Society can perform a useful service for the public in examining and drawing attention to provisions in bills submitted by the various Departments of State which may interfere with the democratic process by encroach ing on the jurisdiction of the Courts. The ordinary citizen, whose rights are affected, is unable to ap preciate the consideration involved; outside the representative bodies of the legal profession there are few associations with the necessary knowledge and resources to deal with such matters. The Criminal Procedure Act 1967 made several •important changes in the conduct of Court pro ceedings. The Council drew attention to section 19 of the Bill when it was before the Oireachtas whereby legal aid was abolished in relation to the preliminary investigation of an indictable offence unless the accused is charged with murder. This, in the view of the Council, is a most retrograde pro vision. The accused, at that stage, must now take vital decisions as to the conduct of his defence without professional legal aid, unless he has the resources to obtain it himself. In my view this provision strikes at the root of the legal aid system, and no justification whatever has been advanced for it. It was presumably inserted at the instance of the Department of Finance because I cannot imagine that the Department of Justice, which was responsible for the introduction of legal aid, would of their own accord seek to deprive an accused person of one of its main advantages. Another provision of this Act causes me person ally much concern. It has always been a recognised principle that the State in the conduct of a pro secution in any Criminal Court may lay before the Court all evidence whether written or oral, which has a bearing on the offence with which the accused is charged. The accused then has an O'P- portunitv. through solicitors or counsel, of testing the evidence by cross-examination. The advan tage given to the accused by this procedure is an

important one. The State must lay the evidence before the Court and it is for the representatives of the accused to cross examine. This advantage seems to have been taken away from the accused by sections 6 and 7 of the Act. The preliminary in vestigation of witnesses on oral evidence is dis continued and the procedure is substituted where by the prosecutor must serve on the accused, inter alia, a list of witnesses and copies of any written information on which the proceedings were brought. If the accused wishes, any witnesses may be required to give oral evidence with the impor tant provision that the witness will be treated as the witness for the accused, and therefore subject to cross examination by the State. I do not know whether this vital change in the law was intended, but it is certainly not in accordance with spirit of the law which was an example of fairness to the accused. In my view it is the duty of the State whenever the accused elects to require oral evi dence from a witness, to produce that witness as a State witness for cross examination on behalf of the accused if necessary. Under the procedure es tablished by the Act, if my reading of it is correct it can be argued that the accused has lost this im portant right. If this is so. and if a Court of com petent jurisdiction so decides, in my opinion the Act should be amended to do justice to the ac cused in the administration of justice. International Bar Association The Society will be host to an assembly of about 1,200 foreign lawyer and their wives for the 12th conference of the International Bar Association at the Royal Dublin Society, Ballsbridge, during the week commencing July 8th. A committee under the chairmanship of Mr. John Carrigan has been working very hard at this project, which indeed will absorb a great deal of the time of the Society's staff during the next six months. At previous con ferences in other countries representatives of the legal profession from every part of the globe have attended and the discussion have been concerned with matters of vital interest to the legal profession and its clients. The following members addressed the meeting: Desmond J. Moran, Gerard M. Doyle, Samuel Crawford, Mr. and Mrs. St. J. Blake, John B. Jermyn. Eunan McCarron, Franklin O'Sullivan, John O'Donovan, P. C. Moore, Patrick Noonan, Robert McD. Taylor, N. T. J. Spendlove, John 66