Seanad debates

Tuesday, 27 May 2008

Civil Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 2006: Committee Stage

 

4:00 pm

Photo of Alex WhiteAlex White (Labour)

I concur with Senator Regan that the fact the requirement is more honoured in the breach is not sufficient reason to remove it. The Minister might remind District Court judges of the legislative requirement rather than simply abolish it.

I am simply opposing this provision and I am not proposing by way of amendment or otherwise the panoply of technology to which the Minister of State referred. I agree with him on the desirability of having digital audio recordings of court proceedings and welcome its development, but that is not at issue. The requirement is somewhat old-fashioned in that the District Court judge takes a note of the evidence before the court. It is not about the ruminations of a District Justice — to which the Minister of State so aptly referred and which, from time to time, amuse or disturb us — it is about some reliable note being kept of the evidence before the court. Solicitors, counsel and others will sometimes take a note of the evidence. However, the most reliable and impartial note would be that kept by a judge. In such circumstances, I do not see a compelling argument for the removal of the provision. Perhaps the Minister of State could instead reinforce the provision as it stands.

Comments

No comments

Log in or join to post a public comment.