Dermot Ahern (Louth, Fianna Fail)

Amendment No. 1 arises from amendment No. 24 which amends the Courts Act 1991. It makes the necessary alterations to the Long Title as a result of an amendment to that Act being added to the Bill.

Amendment No. 24 relates to the issuing of bench warrants. It amends section 22(5) of the Courts Act 1991 by deleting the words, "if the complaint or accusation has been substantiated on oath and". That section of the Courts Act sets out the procedures for the service of summonses by the District Court. It relates to summonses issued under the 1851 Petty Sessions Act and the Courts Act 1986. Different procedures apply under the two Acts for the issuing of summonses. Sworn information is required in the case of the 1851 Act but not in the case of the 1986 Act.

Section 22(4) provides that where a person does not appear as specified in the summons, the court has various options, including adjourning the case to enable the person to be notified of the adjourned hearing. Section 22(5) deals with the enforcement of attendance by a person who fails to appear on the adjourned date. The court may issue a bench warrant for the arrest of the person concerned or it may proceed to hear the case in his or her absence.

In a case stated, the High Court in DPP v. Murphy, October 2009, concluded that where section 22(5) arose, the District Court may proceed to issue a bench warrant but only after hearing sworn evidence. The requirement that the evidence must in all cases be sworn is causing difficulty. It is at odds with the practice in the District Court where, until now, sworn evidence was not required. By removing the words referred to in the amendment, it will be possible to continue to operate on the basis of the practice that applied before this judgment. I have been advised that such a course is in order since the issuing of a bench warrant is a new and separate procedure, the purpose of which is different from the purpose of the original summons. Its purpose is to secure attendance. It does not, therefore, need to reflect the basis upon which the original summons was issued, whether it was under the 1851 or 1986 Act.

A change in practice would present considerable resource and logistical obstacles for the prosecution, as in many cases prosecuting gardaí are not present and the interests of the State are presented by court presenters. The amendment does not put the defendant at any new or greater risk but merely returns to the practice and procedure applied for many years.