James Lawless (Kildare North, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I thank the Minister for introducing the Bill and speaking about its provisions. As stated by colleagues on the justice committee and others, the committee considered this matter at its meeting this afternoon, obviously after the fact in the sense that we granted the waiver last week in corporeal fashion. We were happy to do so as the volume of cases going through the courts was such that the system was threatening to grind to a halt. I considered the figures earlier and concluded 30,000 cases are being processed per week. The figures provided by the Minister of State indicate there were 2,100 in one day. It could be a bit higher on some days. Naas alone processes 300 cases. There are 13 District Courts in Dublin. Every county in the country outside Dublin has at least one, if not two. The lists would have between 100 and 300. Many weeks could see up to 30,000 or more cases going through the courts. Any of us familiar with the District Court system will know it entails summary justice. In reality, common sense and practical considerations inform the outcomes more than any complex legal theories. Experienced judges get the measure of a case in a couple of moments, and often that is all it takes to make the decisions. However, it is important that cases be processed without delay. We could have had circumstances in which the system ground to a halt for want of action by the Oireachtas.

Waiving pre-legislative scrutiny is not best practice or something we want to do or do regularly. As the House, including the Minister of State, will be aware, we process almost all items that come before us with due diligence and carry out scrutiny. While the Davitt decision was a surprise, the High Court appeal, launched from the Circuit Court, was not. The issue ran for months so there was a period in which to identify the issue. In a previous role, I worked in a legal department doing what was called horizon scanning. Part of my role was to consider upcoming legislation, amendments and decisions that might affect the place of work. The Oireachtas, with all its powers, should have at least one person in a similar role scanning the horizon to see what is coming down the track and to be ready to act quickly when something like the development in question happens. I grant credit on the grounds that action has been taken quickly through the drafting of legislation, but the Department, rather than putting things on the back foot, should keep an eye on cases like the one in question as they go through so we will not voice these considerations again. The committee will not grant waivers willy-nilly; it was a special case.

The role of the court presenter has evolved over time, more by accident than by design. I know a number of court presenters. They are sergeants. They are extremely competent in my experience. Any of the ones I know or have come across perform their duties admirably and honourably. They are at a remove. One of the points made about the system is that it is not best practice for the prosecutor to be directly connected to the investigator. Actually, it is often thought that a criminal court case has a defence against the prosecution. People who watch US television dramas, etc., see that sort of adversarial conflict. Of course, there is an adversarial aspect to a case but in the Irish system the prosecutor has the additional duty of ensuring impartiality and independence. The role overrides everything else and the prosecution has an obligation to put before the court matters that come to its attention, even though they may be detrimental to the prosecution case. Prosecutors do that. Along those lines, best practice suggests that because there are obligations, it is not recommended to have the person discharging the prosecution linked directly or indirectly to the investigating force. Many gardaí carry out the function admirably but it is difficult, even for the best-minded and most skilled and honourable gardaí in the world, to be at a remove from the force they are part of and from their colleagues investigating the crime, who may work in the same station, perhaps at the same desk, on a day-to-day basis. That is an issue. However, having said that, it would be far worse if every investigating officer had to prosecute his or her own cases, which is what would happen if this legislation was not enacted. That is what we would have rowed back to. Instead of having the centralised role of court presenter, every garda would be called in, which would put a strain on Garda resources. Not only would the logjam in the courts be problematic but there would also be a strain on Garda resources, with gardaí on the beat and on other duties all of a sudden having to attend courts.

It is a matter for another day but we must consider the lack of efficiency in courtrooms if people must sit around for hours waiting for cases to be heard, perhaps with them being adjourned time and again. Multiple gardaí could be sitting around for multiple days waiting for their five minutes in the sun. I do not believe any of them would want to do that. That is best avoided. It is being avoided through this Bill.

A Policing Authority report, which is published, imminent or expected, makes a recommendation on the degree of independence. It is recommended that an independent prosecutor, be it a State solicitor, State counsel or otherwise, have a role in the courts. While the committee waived the pre-legislative scrutiny and I am supporting the expeditious passage of the Bill because of the nature of the situation, this subject deserves revisiting. The committee may consider it but the Department should do so also. We should not let the perfect be the enemy of the good in considering the legislation today, but let us not allow an imperfect situation to prevail in the long term either.

While we are focusing on the prosecution today, the defence situation is also far from perfect. There has been commentary and coverage recently of defence counsel appearing in the District Court. They are paid a pittance for their time and efforts. One reason is the legal aid scheme in the District Court does not apply to counsel but only to solicitors. It is something of an antiquated scheme. It derives from the days when the District Court had much shorter lists and when a solicitor might have covered two or three matters in a court before lunch, before dealing with conveyancing or something like that in the afternoon. In reality, with busy practices and expanding suburbs, a Dublin solicitor is not going to spend an entire day looking after one case. In the Criminal Courts of Justice, for example, a barrister might deal with a number of cases on a given day for different solicitors. The barrister's role has been developed within the District Court but the system that exists recognises only the role of the solicitor and, therefore, the barrister who takes up the mantle depends on the solicitor to pay him or her afterwards, almost through a back-door system. It is very confusing. It is very unfair to those who go down that route. The natural progression is that those concerned will withdraw their services eventually and move on to other things, and the system will be the poorer for it. This should be looked into when the District Court system is being considered.

See this speech in context