Committee Reports > List of Committees > Dáil > 1990 > Committee of Public Accounts > Final Report - Appropriation Accounts 1988

AN COISTE UM CHUNTAIS POIBLÍ

(Committee of Public Accounts)

Déardaoin, 28 Meitheamh, 1990

Thursday, 28 June, 1990

The Committee met at 11 a.m.

Members Present:

DEPUTY G. MITCHELL in the chair

Mr. P. L. McDonnell (An tArd Reachtaire Cuntas agus Ciste) called and examined.

VOTE 8—COMPTROLLER AND AUDITOR GENERAL.

Mr. P. Graham called and examined.

Chairman.—This morning the Committee are examining Mr. Patrick Graham, Secretary, Office of the Comptroller and Auditor General, on the audited accounts for 1988. In the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General on his own office there is the following paragraph.

General

Since 1982 I have referred in my reports to the effects on the work of my Office of continuing reductions in staffing. The staff complement of my Office at the date of this report is 70 as against the level of 101 agreed by the Department of the Public Service in December 1980 when the last full examination of the staffing needs of my Office took place. In the meantime, while certain audits have ceased to be performed by my Office, some new audits have been assigned to me. Furthermore, I have been endeavouring with the support of the Committee of Public Accounts and the Department of Finance to gradually broaden the scope of my audit of public expenditure to encompass some value-for-money aspects.

Following discussions with the Department of Finance, certain measures which I had proposed in regard to the recruitment of permanent staff have been put in train. It was also agreed that, in the short term, I should engage staff from a private sector auditing firm on a contract basis to help in the clearing of audit arrears.

You are very welcome, Mr. Graham.

Mr. McDonnell.—The Committee will recall that when they were considering my previous report for 1987, I told them — and it is formally stated at the end of the paragraph — that the Department of Finance had agreed to a number of measures which I had proposed on the staffing side, notably the recruitment of new staff and the short-term engagement of junior staff from private sector auditing firms on a contract basis. To update you on that, the present position is that new staff have been taken on over the last five months following a special competition run by the Civil Service Commission in association with my Office. This year we have again engaged some junior staff from the private sector on a contract basis, the same basis as the previous year because we did have a very successful experience with that last year.

Chairman.—Mr. Graham, how were the outside accounting staff selected?

Mr. Graham.—On the basis of a competitive tender. We invited seven firms to tender and on the basis of the competition, we were satisfied that we have given the contract to the company who were giving us the best value for money.

Chairman.—You are aware that the Committee did a special report on the future of the Comptroller and Auditor General and the Committee itself and that that has been the subject of discussion between this Committee and the Minister for Finance and we were hoping that progress would be made. Could I ask you specifically about the audit provisions of your own Office? Do you think it is satisfactory that the present situation should continue?

Mr. Graham.—You mean in relation to the audit of my Vote?

Chairman.—Yes.

Mr. Graham.—That was covered in the special report as far as I know and the Office goes along very much with the recommendations here that we should be no different from anyone else, and the recommendation was that the Office should be audited by an independent auditor. I think that that would be very reasonable.

Chairman.—Could the Department of Finance tell us at what stage the proposals of the PAC are, and specifically in relation to this audit? I understand that we might anticipate progress being made on the updating of the powers of the Comptroller and Auditor General later in the year.

Ms. Kyne (Department of Finance).—My understanding is that the proposals are with the Minister and, as you said, you met the Minister relatively recently. We have not got any further information we can add since you met him.

Chairman.—Take back to your Secretary, Ms. Kyne, the interest of the Committee in pursuing this matter urgently. I want to use this opportunity to underline that fact.

Ms. Kyne.—Certainly.

Chairman.—Mr. Graham, on the question of the Act itself, obviously I have been through this quite a bit as has the Comptroller and Auditor General but not all the Members of the Committee have been, although I think everybody is fairly up to date. The legislation under which you operate was passed in 1866. I think Gladstone was Chancellor of the Exchequer — he was not even Prime Minister — at the time. Of its day it was certainly very reforming legislation. Do you think that with the explosion of Government expenditure since 1866, the Comptroller and Auditor General should still operate under legislation that old? Is it not time we had major sweeping changes in the powers of the Comptroller and Auditor General?

Mr. Graham.—I suppose I could give a very simple answer to that and say yes. In common with other institutions, certainly an institution that was established in the 19th century, one we have inherited from our former masters, has been adapted quite well to meet our needs. It is right that in the last decade of the 20th century we should review the powers of the Comptroller and Auditor General. Indeed, I would say one would regard it as essential that we should review the powers of the Comptroller and Auditor General and that they should be extended where necessary. As you say, public spending today is such a large part of the economy in comparison to the middle of the 19th century and it behoves us to do something about it.

Chairman.—For every 1 per cent of wasteful spending you could cut out today maybe you are talking about £150 million or something of that order. If it could be identified and cut out you are talking about very substantial amounts of money. Value for money auditing based on economy, efficiency and effectiveness, should be the order of the day. Would you accept that, Mr. Graham?

Mr. Graham.—Yes.

The witness withdrew.

VOTE 14 — OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS

Mr. M. Liddy called and examined.

Chairman.—The Committee of Public Accounts are continuing their examination of Mr. Michael Liddy, Senior Legal Assistant Officer at the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions in his capacity as Accounting Officer for that Vote on the audited accounts for the year ended 31 December 1988. You are very welcome, Mr. Liddy

Mr. Liddy.—Thank you.

Chairman.—I must apologise for having delayed you at our last meeting. We ran into some difficulties but I think as a compensation we got to you very quickly this morning.

Mr. Liddy.—Thank you very much.

Chairman.—Can you tell the Committee why it was necessary to bring in a Supplementary Estimate under subhead D — Fees to Counsel — E — General Law Expenses — and F — State Pathology?

Mr. Liddy.—Yes. As far as fees to counsel were concerned, we had received for the year 1988 a reduced allocation of moneys because it was thought there would be in operation in 1988 a salaried prosecutor’s service. This did not come about during 1988. As a result we had to pay more fees to counsel than had been expected. Also there was more work for counsel to do because of a reduction in the number of solicitors in the Chief State Solicitor’s Office. Also there was one particularly heavy case in the Special Criminal Court, the Dessie O’Hare case, which called for the payment of very exceptional fees to counsel. That deals with the extra fees to counsel. What were the other questions?

Chairman.—General Law Expenses.

Mr. Liddy.—There was an increase in the amount of costs awarded against the State in judicial review cases in the High Court and the Supreme Court. It is for our office to pick up the tab in such cases. The increase in costs awarded against us resulted particularly from the increased number of judicial review cases taken. The more cases taken against the State, the more chance that costs will be awarded against the State.

Chairman.—There was not an increase.

Mr. Liddy.—I thought not.

Chairman.—In the case of Fees to Counsel, do you keep under review value for money in the payments which are made to counsel?

Mr. Liddy.—Very much so. We are very conscious of the cost of employing counsel. We, of course, seek to employ the best counsel. We are in the marketplace along with other persons seeking to employ those counsel. We pay just as much as and no more than is required to get them. We pay them a little less than we would otherwise do because we employ them on a regular basis.

Chairman.—Could you tell the Committee what you spent in the year on prosecutions in the Special Criminal Court? How much of the total would that have accounted for, approximately?

Mr. Liddy.—The total was £86,000 for 1988 which represented 8.9 per cent of total expenditure by us on counsel fees.

Chairman.—Lastly, if my recollection is correct, and I am relying on my recollection, the Select Committee on Crime, Lawlessness and Vandalism completed a report — I was a member of the Committee and we were working on a report. I think we completed a report on prosecutions. One of the facts to which the Committee drew attention was that sometimes for misdemeanours or relatively lesser crimes, gardaí are required to attend at courts in large numbers. One could find a large number of gardaí attending at one court in the morning, each having to prosecute a different case. In order to free the gardaí and allow them be on the beat or attend to other work they have to do, the Committee suggested that a prosecution system should be introduced, perhaps where you would have an inspector who would prosecute all the cases, or somebody from your office or on behalf of your office. I do not know what the legal implications of that would be, but certainly it would seem to have cost saving implications for the State. What is your view on that?

Mr. Liddy.—The situation was that gardaí did turn up for court in an uneconomic way to present their cases. These days summonses are issued by the District Court office in Dublin in order to achieve a maximum number of cases for a particular garda on a particular day. This is now possible because of the computerisation of the courts summons issuing process. There could be further economies in Garda time and thus in public expenditure if there were more solicitors in the Chief State Solicitor’s Office. I appreciate that would cost public money, but there would probably still be a saving in the end and there would be a more efficient form of prosecuting. The solicitors could handle in a day cases that many gardaí, maybe on overtime, could handle, perhaps less efficiently.

Chairman.—Would Jim O’Farrell of the Department of Finance take a look at that and see if there could be a cost saving along those lines?

Mr. O’Farrell.—We have already addressed that point. The Accounting Officer’s point is well taken. Additional solicitors and support staff are in the process of being recruited for the Chief State Solicitor’s Office having regard, inter alia, to that very point about a greater public economy.

Chairman.—That would mean that on the other side there would be a saving in Garda time in attending courts. Is that correct?

Mr. O’Farrell.—Yes, and in counsel’s fees for cases where counsel would not have to be briefed if there were adequate solicitors and legal clerks and so forth to support them. So there would be a saving on both counts.

Chairman.—Would you send the Committee a note on your considerations on those particular points?

Mr. O’Farrell.—On that particular point, certainly, Chairman.

Deputy McGahon.—Mr. Liddy, I would like to ask you about your office — a rather mysterious one to me and to masses of the Irish people. I know as much about the DPP as I do about a Trappist Monastery. Who is the DPP? Who works in his office and how many people are employed there.

Mr. Liddy.—The DPP is a law officer established by the Prosecution of Offences Act, 1974. He is in charge of the prosecution of crime in all courts throughout the country. Prosecutions in the Circuit Criminal Court, the Central Criminal Court, the Special Criminal Court cannot proceed without his impri-matur. The office has six legal assistants at present.

Deputy McGahon.—Are they solicitors?

Mr. Liddy.—Three are solicitors and three are barristers but it could be a different proportion. Files are submitted to the Office by gardaí through the State solicitors in the country, through the Chief State Solicitor’s Office in Dublin, for directions by the Director and his staff.

Deputy McGahon.—So six people are handling virtually the entire legal work of the country. That would account for the inordinate delays that sometimes occur in the process.

Mr. Liddy.—No, I would not accept that. Six people are giving decisions in criminal matters but although it is a heavy workload I do not think there is delay in the DPP’s Office. There can be delay for various reasons in files getting to the DPP’s Office.

Deputy McGahon.—In many cases that would not be extremely serious. You would act presumably on the advice of the local superintendent, as to whether to charge?

Mr. Liddy.—We would, in the great majority of cases.

Deputy McGahon.—Do you have difficulty in preferring charges against people from the North of Ireland? The reason I ask you that is that in County Louth we suffer more road brutalities every year than any other county. In the last five years 37 people lost their lives. In 24 of those cases the persons who were involved in the fatal accidents were from the North of Ireland—a very high proportion. Only seven were prosecuted. Why is that? Is justice being served that young people can be killed and there is no prosecution? There have been some very blatant cases. There is one in particular where two young girls aged 19 were killed in Dundalk, by a man alleged to have been driving at very high speed. That man was never charged and the parents of those two girls cannot accept that he was not charged by the State. Your office does not give any reason and you are not accountable to any Minister in the Dáil. You are a very privileged and mysterious organisation. You are accountable to nobody. Have you got a difficulty in charging people from another jurisdiction?

Mr. Liddy.—No. First, the incident of the alleged dangerous drivers that you refer to are not known to our office.

Deputy McGahon.—They are, Mr. Liddy.

Mr. Liddy.—I do not recall any files relating in particular to incidents of dangerous driving by people from the North of Ireland more than by other people. It can be as difficult to find evidence to bring charges where there is suspected bad driving as in other areas. We can bring charges only where the evidence is clear. That is the system of law under which this country operates. We will bring charges against the violent drivers as much as against anybody else.

Deputy McGahon.—I realise that life is regarded very cheaply in this country, but where there is a fatal accident and people are not prosecuted or charged with manslaughter there is something radically wrong with the law. I think you have a difficulty in giving bail to people who sometimes do not come into the jurisdiction. To cause loss of life, in my book, is still a very serious crime. The case I referred to was much publicised, where two girls of 19 years of age, two cousins — one was to get married the following week — were killed by a man alleged to have been travelling at a very high speed. There was no prosecution. Apparently the man had no insurance either.

Chairman.—We have to be careful under the privileges of the Committee not to put anybody on trial who is not here to defend himself. The point is fair enough to raise, but I do not think it is fair to go into the specifics of the case since we do not know the other side of the story.

Deputy McGahon.—The protection that that office has in this country is not enjoyed by corresponding offices in other countries. I accept your ruling, Chairman.

Chairman.—I understand the frustration but the difficulty is that the person is not here to defend himself or herself.

Deputy McGahon.—There are two girls lying in a grave.

Chairman.—Yes, I have come across cases myself. On a general point, a Select Committee of the Dáil has already addressed the question of the accountability of the DPP’s Office in consultation with the DPP and, without putting words in the DPP’s mouth, I think that in agreement with the DPP, myself and Deputy Michael Woods who was then the Chairman, that report is there and has not been acted on. At that stage it passes into the realms of policy.

Deputy McGahon.—I accept that. I just want to ask one final question. Last night in the Seanad Minister Treacy suggested that it was possible that in the future members of the IRA could be charged with treason under the Criminal Justice Bill. Is that a possibility in the future?

Mr. Liddy.—I do not know.

Deputy McGahon.—He has not told you?

Mr. Liddy.—No. I do not know what might happen in the future. All I can say is that treason is an offence in this country and it is open to our office to prosecute for it in appropriate cases.

Deputy McGahon.—When did you last do it?

Mr. Liddy.—I do not think it has been done; I feel sure it has not been done.

Deputy McGahon.—It is like hanging.

Deputy M. Ahern.—Under subhead D — Fees to Counsel — there is a fee paid to counsel — I am not talking about the total sum. You mentioned that there were six legal assistants in the office. Would this imply that you employ people outside the office to give advice or counsel?

Mr. Liddy.—In fact, the Attorney General employs them, the State solicitors throughout the country, the State solicitor for each county — in some counties there are two State solicitors — and in Dublin the solicitors in the Chief State Solicitor’s Office all give us advice. they act as a link between the Garda who prepare the files and who make recommendations and our office, that takes the decisions in the matter.

Deputy M. Ahern.—Are the payments in Subhead D to those people?

Mr. Liddy.—No. Fees to Counsel are the fees paid to the barristers who actually appear in court having been directed.

Chairman.—If you got the advice of counsel it would not go under that heading. It would be fees for court work that would go under that subhead?

Mr. Liddy.—If we got the advice of counsel it would go under that heading. It would be added to the fee he would get for his actual court appearance.

Deputy Connor.—In relation to the question of Fees to Counsel in comparison with your overall wages and salaries bill at £320,000, you spend almost £1,000,000 on counsel. I take it you do not retain in your office somebody of the rank of Senior Counsel or Junior Counsel? Is that correct?

Mr. Liddy.—We do not retain.

Deputy Connor.—Or you do not have them on your own permanent staff?

Mr. Liddy.—No, we do not. We have barristers in our staff. The rank of Senior Counsel is appropriate to a barrister practising in the Law Library. No, we do not have Senior Counsel in the Office. It is not a rank that is appropriate to the Civil Service.

Deputy Connor.—In relation to the amount of money involved, could we have some idea of the number of barristers or Senior Counsel who would be employed and who would have earned this amount of money?

Mr. Liddy.—Yes. Mr. Clancy, our office manager, has a list of the counsel we employed in 1988 and the fees paid to them. That will go to the Chairman.

Deputy Connor.—You mentioned the Desmond O’Hare case cost additional moneys. Could you elaborate and be more specific as to why it cost more?

Mr. Liddy.—Yes. It was a very demanding case. There were five accused in total. The preparation work for the case was very difficult, complex and prolonged. The Garda file had over 500 potential witnesses and many of the alleged offences had to be considered by us and indeed by the barristers who were to prosecute for us. The trial was expected to last five weeks—that was the estimate we got. We had to get very good barristers to appear for us. For that length of time, considering the quality of the barristers involved who had undertaken to give exclusive attention to the case, those were the kind of fees that we considered appropriate, having made careful inquiries into the matter of appropriate fees.

Deputy Connor.—In relation to another question which has been touched upon, where cases are referred to you by the Attorney General and where you may decide not to prosecute, that can often be controversial. You are protected under the law on this.

Mr. Liddy.—Sorry, could I interrupt? The cases are not referred to us by the Attorney General.

Deputy Connor.—From the Garda or wherever. When you decide not to prosecute, some of your decisions can be controversial, you accept that, and are made a little more controversial, I suggest by the fact that under the law you do not give a reason for not proceeding with a prosecution or having the court adjudicate on a particular case. Do you think that is good for the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions?

Mr. Liddy.—I think it is very good for the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions, but—

Deputy Taylor.—It is bad for the public.

Mr. Liddy.—When I say that, I mean that we would be quite happy to operate under any system that was laid down for us. We do not like being the subject of controversy. We would much prefer to have a quieter life. If there was an alternative legal system set up that could bring about our disclosure of the reasons for our decisions in certain cases, we would be quite happy to operate under that.

Deputy Connor.—Would you recommend to the legislators that we should change the law in such a way that would allow you to reveal to the public in certain cases, or maybe in all cases, why you do not proceed?

Mr. Liddy.—I do not really think it is a matter for us to recommend or not to recommend. We will operate under the system that exists. If the Government, the Attorney General, the Minister for Justice and others, think that the system should be changed we would expect them to take the initiative in the matter.

Deputy Connor.—I just put the question to you because it was recommended to the legislators, I take it, that it was done the way it was done when it was done. Since some people are unhappy about it we will be glad to hear any advice.

Mr. Liddy.—Yes.

Deputy Connor.—You succeeded—may be you were not there in 1974—in the work of the Attorney General in the prosecutions. I am wondering about the size of the Attorney General’s Office and the size of your office. You are a new office shorn off the Attorney General’s Office in 1974 by that law. Do the two offices now constitute something that was larger than the Attorney General’s Office in 1974 in terms of staff, or are you smaller— and I appreciate the difficulty you might have about making any comment about the size of the Attorney General’s Office.

Mr. Liddy.—Yes, we are larger, that is true. I do not know the present staff situation in the Attorney General’s Office but in our office we have not increased our staff although we have been getting an increasing amount of business for some years. We have sought to take more on to ourselves to increase the role of the lawyer in the criminal process as against the role of the Garda, so we require more staff for that purpose with, I hope, a corresponding improvement in the legal system. We are doing the amount of work in the office that justifies the staff we have.

Deputy Connor.—One final point: on extradition cases which are relatively new to your office, do you find the work more costly than you expected or do you find them time consuming to have the cases processed? What effect on the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions have extradition cases and a proliferation of extradition cases which might take place in the future had?

Mr. Liddy.—Extradition out of this country elsewhere is a matter for the Attorney General’s Office and not for our office. Our office deals with extradition from foreign countries into Ireland.

Deputy Connor.—Right. Does that present you with difficulty in terms of time?

Mr. Liddy.—No. Most of the extraditions are from England where there is not a difficulty—I cannot think of one from the continent offhand. The few that there are from Northern Ireland do not present a difficulty.

Deputy Flood.—Very briefly, under subhead B.1.—Travelling and Incidental Expenses—there was a considerable amount not expended due in part to the postponement of the purchase of computers. Why was the decision taken not to proceed with the purchase of computers and what effect has it had on your office in terms of efficiency?

Mr. Liddy.—We were considering what kind of computerisation system to introduce into the office. A decision depended on the form of prosecution system that we would end up with. During 1988 at no stage did we know what form of prosecution system we would end up with and, therefore it would have been premature to decide what kind of computerisation system we should have.

Deputy Flood.—Does this mean that effectively you do not have the benefit of computerisation in your office as yet?

Mr. Liddy.—We have now a system which was introduced some months ago which helps us to keep our records very effectively.

Deputy Flood.—With regard to fee payments to counsel, what do you see as the amount of the highest earner in 1988?

Mr. Liddy.—The amount would be £39,000.

Deputy Flood.—Can you break that down into a day’s work?

Chairman.—Is that before or after VAT?

Mr. Liddy.—That is before VAT. It is £49,000 after VAT.

Deputy Flood.—Can you break that into a day’s work?

Mr. Liddy.—No, I cannot break it down in a day’s work. We pay barristers by the case. The case may last for a day, two days or longer. We pay a certain fee for the first day, and reduced fees thereafter.

Deputy Flood.—I am interested in this issue. Can you give me an example of a one day case? What was the highest fee paid for a one day case?

Mr. Liddy.—It is a difficult question to answer. We would not have a figure for a case lasting for one day. In the O’Hare case — O’Hare and four others accused — it was expected to last five weeks. In fact it lasted two days. We paid a fee of £10,500 to Senior Counsel in that case. As I say, it was an extraordinary case for various reasons, but that kind of fee would not be repeated for a long time.

Deputy Flood.—Are you saying that you paid one individual £10,500 for two days work?

Mr. Liddy.—It was not for two days work. It was for a very considerable amount of work beforehand. The preparation for that case was enormous. The barrister then had to divulge himself of work for the five weeks the case was expected to last. It was a case that would call for very good counsel, that kind of counsel will have work piled up for the period of five weeks following the listing of this particular case. While it appears to be a very big sum, in all the circumstances and after careful consideration by our office, we did not consider it excessive; we considered it appropriate in the circumstances.

Deputy Flood.—Does that mean Mr. Liddy that you paid the barrister for pre-court appearance work rather than for court appearance work?

Mr. Liddy.—No. We paid the barrister what is called a brief fee, which included his appearance in court on the first day of the case and his preparation work beforehand which, of course takes a long time if the case is complex and as lengthy as this one was.

Deputy Flood.—What sort of preparation work would the barrister have had to do in the O’Hare case. I am asking this so that it could be explained to some of us who are lay people in matters of this kind.

Mr. Liddy.—In a file where there are over 500 potention witnesses the barrister would have to consider carefully what each of them has to say about the case, he would have to decide what offences are made out by the allegations in those statements; he would have to work out how to combat any possible defence that might be open to the defendants; he would have to work out tactics where there were five accused as to how best to deal with the various accused; he would have to go into the background of the Garda involvement in the case and the circumstances in which they came to deal with various of the witnesses and the accused persons; and he would have not only to put the best case forward but to anticipate any pitfalls that there might be.

Deputy Flood.—Would this involve a lot of consultations with the individuals you have mentioned?

Mr. Liddy.—It would involve a lot of consultations with the gardaí who would have liaised with witnesses and who would have questioned the accused persons. In this case it must have involved many and time consuming consultations.

Deputy Flood.—Finally, on this case, have you not worked out an arrangement with counsel whereby, if a case is expected as this one was, say, to last five weeks but does not last nearly that amount of time, there will be an appropriate saving in the fees to be paid? Would the reverse also apply where a case went on far longer than expected, that counsel would seek additional payments?

Mr. Liddy.—The fact that the case ended much earlier, to put it mildly, than was expected would have been taken into account in the taking of the decision by the director as to the appropriate fee. We do get applications by counsel for increased fees because cases go on for longer than was expected and we may or may not pay extra fees on that account.

Deputy Flood.—Are you saying that fees are not agreed beforehand, then?

Mr. Liddy.—They are in most cases. Occasionally they are not, or occasionally the fee agreed is on the basis that a particular situation will exist which then turns out not to exist.

Deputy Flood.—In the past there has been some criticism about what might appear to be earnings of a very small group of Senior Counsel by comparison to others. You have made a list available, I think, to the Chairman today. It is a pity the rest of us do not have a copy.

Chairman.—It can be circulated if Members wish.

Deputy Flood.—How does it arise that certain Senior Counsel seem to earn in terms of fees from your office an inordinate amount in comparison with others?

Mr. Liddy.—Certain of them would be available for work whereas others would not. The available Senior Counsel would get more cases. We would choose certain counsel to prosecute particular cases because of what we would consider to be their expertise. It is important to have Senior Counsel and Junior Counsel build up a corps of expertise from the cases they take. That is what happens.

Chairman.—Before I call Deputy Taylor and Deputy Dennehy, may I excuse myself and ask the indulgence of the Committee because I have another important meeting to attend this morning? I also want to ask for the indulgence of the Committee as I have an important family matter to attend next Thursday. The Department of Health are due in, but as the duties of the Committee are well in hand, we will have plenty of time during the summer to complete our examination. Could I suggest, with the permission of the Committee, that we give ourselves next Thursday off to participate in the Adjournment Debate?

Agreed.

Chairman.—Thank you. Deputy McGahon might take the Chair for the remainder of the session.

Deputy McGahon.—Is there a fee?

Chairman.—Not yet. I am working on it.

Deputy McGahon took the Chair.

Acting Chairman (Deputy McGahon).—This is like sitting in the Pope’s Chair. Before I call on Deputy Taylor, I would like to ask one question in relation to the line of questioning pursued by Deputy Flood. Under subhead D — Fees to Counsel — there is a supplementary amount of £255,000. Does that relate to the O’Hare case in its entirety?

Mr. Liddy.—No. The O’Hare case would have been a factor. The fees paid in the O’Hare case were exceptional and would have been one of the reasons that we looked for that supplementary amount.

Acting Chairman.—So it was not all used up in that case?

Mr. Liddy.—No, not at all. The supplementary estimate was used, to pay an increased amount to barristers employed by the Chief State Solicitor’s Office to prosecute in the District Court. The reason that they were employed there was because there were no solicitors available to prosecute in that court. The barristers were employed on an ever increasing basis and thus the amount of money that we thought would be needed for them was then determined to be inadequate.

Acting Chairman.—So, it is true to say that the fact that the case collapsed after two days did save the State much revenue anticipated by you?

Mr. Liddy.—It would have saved the State a lot of revenue and various expenses that would have been incurred, witnesses’ expenses, Garda time——

Acting Chairman.—More particularly barristers’ fees at the rate of £10,000 per day.

Mr. Liddy.—It the case had gone on for five weeks, we certainly would have paid considerably more than we did pay in barristers’ fees.

Acting Chairman.—I do not suppose you can tell us, as it does not come under your office, the cost of Mr. O’Hare’s stay in hospital. Was it the Blackrock Clinic or St. Vincents?

Mr. Liddy.—I do not know. As you say, it would not come under our Vote. I cannot remember where he was.

Acting Chairman.—It would be interesting to find out what it cost the State.

Deputy Taylor.—Mr. Liddy, you said that there were six legal assistants working in the office, three solicitors and three barristers. There is a secretarial back-up staff in addition to that, is there?

Mr. Liddy.—That is right.

Deputy Taylor.—How many of a back-up staff?

Mr. Liddy.—Ten. I believe.

Deputy Taylor.—Do the three solicitors and three barristers, do court appearances?

Mr. Liddy.—No, none of them does court appearances. Court appearances for our office are carried out by either practising barristers or solicitors in the Chief State Solicitor’s Office, the District Office or the superintendents, inspectors, lower ranks in Dublin; and it is more or less the same in the country.

Deputy Taylor.—I see. Is the actual conduct of the prosecution of the case undertaken by your office, or the Chief State Solicitor’s Office, or the local State Solicitor’s Office?

Mr. Liddy.—Regarding the conduct of the prosecution of the case, we would give certain directions in each case referred to us. Then we would leave it to the person appearing who might be a solicitor, a barrister or a garda, actually to deal with the case from the time it starts in court.

Deputy Taylor.—When there is counsel, for example, conducting a case of prosecution in court for the DPP and a solicitor or somebody from a solicitor’s office is in attendance organising witnesses, preparing papers, exhibits and so on, is that person from your office or from the Chief State Solicitor’s Office?

Mr. Liddy.—From the Chief State Solicitor’s Office.

Deputy Taylor.—Not from your office at all?

Mr. Liddy.—Not from our office at all.

Deputy Taylor.—Is your function confined to deciding whether a prosecution should be brought? Is that the extent of your responsibilities?

Mr. Liddy.—It is not, in fact. That is our first involvement in the case. As I say, we allow the person who is to appear in court to deal with the case from the time it starts in court. We would still, of course, in appropriate cases, issue directions to the person appearing for us in court either at his request or of our own volition. We would still have overall responsibility for the case even though, in the majority of cases, we would not deal with a case after it had started in court.

Deputy Taylor.—Could it be that the Chief State Solicitor’s Office or a State Solicitor’s Office would also be giving directions to the barrister conducting the case for you?

Mr. Liddy.—Not directions, no. It would be for our office to give directions.

Deputy Taylor.—Would it not be fair to say that there is an overlap and a confusion and an unnecessary expense involved here as between the role of the DPP’s Office and of the Chief State Solicitor’s Office and the State Solicitor’s Office and that there is no necessity to have two establishments, one simply making the decision as to whether there should be a prosecution and some tenuous connection with the prosecution after that, and the active conduct of the prosecution then being undertaken by the State Solicitor’s Office? Would it not be altogether more sensible, practical, expeditious and far cheaper to the taxpayer if there was one prosecution office that did both functions?

Mr. Liddy.—I think the Chief State Solicitor’s Office and the State Solicitors throughout the country do good jobs, but I certainly agree. In my view it would be a much more efficient, probably quite a cost-saving exercise if, in fact, persons went from the DPP’s Office to liaise with counsel in particular in court or perhaps to prosecute themselves from our office and, of course, it would help to ensure the independence of the DPP’s Office.

Deputy Taylor.—It follows from what you are saying that you agree with my suggestion that there is an appreciable amount of wastage of public funds by reason of this overlap that appears to have built into the system between your office and the State Solicitor’s Office and the Chief State Solicitor’s Office in the case of Dublin?

Mr. Liddy.—I do not know about the wastage of public funds. Certainly, the Chief State Solicitor’s Office work hard and efficiently. From the efficiency point of view, it is clear to me that prosecutions should be handled by our office. I feel that there would be savings, but in what amount I would not know.

Deputy Taylor.—You would not want to say. Can you tell me how many files there are on hands at the moment for examination and decision in the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions?

Mr. Liddy.—We have at present approximately 4,500 files per annum.

Deputy Taylor.—How many files are there on the desk of the DPP and of the six legal assistants awaiting examination and a decision?

Mr. Liddy.—It is too difficult a question. I do not know.

Deputy Taylor.—How many files on average would there be on hands in the office from time to time — 50, 1,000, 500?

Mr. Liddy.—There would be 50, yes; there would not be 500.

Deputy Taylor.—There is a big gap between 50 and 500.

Acting Chairman.—Perhaps Mr. Liddy will send the Committee a note of it at his convenience.

Mr. Liddy.—I will certainly seek to do so, yes.

Deputy Taylor.—I will approach the same problem from a different angle, if I may. Is it not a fact that, in very many cases of files submitted for a decision to your office, there is a very prolonged delay in the giving of a decision whether there should be a prosecution or not?

Mr. Liddy.—I deny that categorically. I do not know where the basis for that statement is. It is not so. We consider in our office that we deal with files quickly. Occasionally, for various reasons, decisions might be delayed. We might need to get further information, for example, from the Garda, but whenever we have all the information that we need, decisions are reached very speedily.

Deputy Taylor.—Does the Director of Public Prosecutions personally examine every file?

Mr. Liddy.—No. Can I elaborate on that? The files that come into the office are looked at by the Director of Public Prosecutions before being distributed to the legal assistants. He is aware of all files that come into the office.

Deputy Taylor.—Yes, but he does not personally examine and make a decision on each file?

Mr. Liddy.—No.

Deputy Taylor.—What proportion of the files does he personally examine and make a decision on or is he engaged in that kind of work at all?

Mr. Liddy.—He takes decisions on certain files. As to what the percentage is I do not know and I do not want to guess.

Deputy Taylor.—So the position then is that the actual decision to prosecute or not in most of the 4,500 cases you are talking about is made by a legal assistant, solicitor or barrister, as the case may be.

Mr. Liddy.—The decision is made by either a legal assistant or the senior legal assistant in the majority of cases and by the Director of Public Prosecutions in the remaining cases.

Deputy Taylor.—Would it not be altogether more satisfactory if the system provided for permanent, full-time lawyers, solicitors and barristers to be retained by the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions to go into court and conduct the cases?

Mr. Liddy.—That system has many advantages. If you got the right kind of people to prosecute such cases I would be much in favour of the system. Our office has proposed such a scheme to the Department of Finance.

Deputy Taylor.—When did you do that?

Mr. Liddy.—We did this in 1988.

Deputy Taylor.—Have you received any reply to that proposal from the Department of Finance?

Mr. Liddy.—We received a reply to the effect that the scheme we proposed would not be implemented.

Deputy Taylor.—Was any reason given?

Mr. Liddy.—I will not go into the nature of their reply.

Deputy Taylor.—I am not asking you what the reply was. Did they give reasons or did they simply decline it?

Mr. Liddy.—A reason was given, yes.

Deputy Taylor.—When you made that submission to the Minister for Finance did you prepare any cost estimates of the savings that could be achieved if that scheme were implemented?

Mr. Liddy.—We did.

Deputy Taylor.—How much did you estimate could be saved to the taxpayer if the scheme which you proposed was implemented?

Mr. Liddy.—It was estimated at £125,000 in a year.

Deputy Taylor.—You estimated that there could be a saving of £125,000 per year?

Mr. Liddy.—Yes.

Deputy Taylor.—If your scheme was implemented?

Mr. Liddy.—Yes.

Deputy Taylor.—And that was declined by the Minister?

Mr. Liddy.—It was, indeed, declined by the Department of Finance. I do not know if they accepted that figure. The figure we were suggesting was our assessment of the situation, which is not a professional assessment.

Deputy Taylor.—It was your assessment. You are the finance officer. Was the Comptroller and Auditor General aware of that or is that a matter that requires examination by him, that there is a potential saving there?

Mr. McDonnell.—I was not aware that the Office of the DPP had made proposals in regard to the changing of the arrangements for the staffing of the office.

Deputy Taylor.—Is it something that you would be interested in looking into?

Mr. McDonnell.—The provision of staffing and resources and so on is obviously a matter for the Department of Finance to decide on. No doubt, in doing so they observe the directions given by Government on the policy side. But as to the potential saving, looking at it prima facie one would have to say that if the mandate of my Office were extended to the wider issue of value for money in its totality, so to speak, it might well be something which would concern me.

Acting Chairman.—At this point I would like to ask Mr. O’Farrell if he would like to comment from his point of view.

Mr. O’Farrell (Department of Finance).—The Comptroller has put his finger on it when he says that the conduct of prosecutions and the arrangements therefor would be a policy issue. The staffing arrangements of the DPP are a matter for the Taoiseach with the approval of the Minister for Finance. A major change like that — the Accounting Officer can correct men if I am wrong — would not be anything like just a matter of saying that the DPP can have extra staff. You probably would be talking about considerable amending legislation. To the best of my knowledge, without being a legal counsel myself, there is a big question about whether or not full-time prosecutors could get a hearing at all in the court on major criminal prosecutions. It would not be correct to say that a detailed costing of the two alternative systems would have been done or could have been done. There are simply too many conjectural issues and too many imponderables dealing with the most fundamental policy issue, namely, the prosecution of crime within the State. Certain arrangements were implemented in 1974 after memorandum for Government. They were a very radical overhaul in what had previously obtained in the conduct of criminal prosecutions. You would now be talking about another absolutely major policy change in the conduct of prosecutions. As an official, I think I would be precluded from going any further into such a fundamental policy issue, except to say, as the Accounting Officer would no doubt agree, that there is nothing precise about the figure £125,000. That could be give or take £250,000 either way if you went into it, but before going into it you would have to get past the major policy issue first.

Deputy Taylor.—I would just make a brief comment on that. My submission would be that it is not a major policy issue. It would in no way affect the position or the statutory duties of the Office of Director of Public Prosecutions. I would doubt that any statutory amendment would be necessary to implement it. What we are talking about here is a situation in which, instead of retaining outside counsel in all cases as is done here at a cost of approximately £1 million, one would have in full-time employment some solicitors and barristers whose services are readily obtainable. First-class counsel can be obtained if a reasonable salary is paid to them and the position is made sufficiently attractive to them as it should be, so that they would be, as it were, in-house solicitors and barristers who would be availed of on a full-time, skilled professional basis rather than going out into the marketplace and hawking about in the Bar library to get a counsel and negotiating fees on an ad hoc basis. That makes eminent sense to me. It obviously also made eminent sense to the Director of Public Prosecutions because he went to the trouble of actually preparing a scheme, costing it and estimating it and submitting it to the Minister for Finance for examination. He would not have wasted his time and effort going through all of that unless he thought there were substantial savings to be made there. To say, as Mr. O’Farrell said, that such a barrister would not get a hearing before the court, quite frankly I could not accept that. Solicitors and barristers go into court from the legal aid service, private solicitors. A barrister is a barrister who goes into court with his wig and gown on and says who he is representing and conducts the case. That would be quite acceptable and it would not be open to any court or judge to raise, nor would any court or judge raise, any question whether he was in the full-time employ of the DPP or not. I accept, though, that the figure for the saving given by the DPP is only an estimate. That comment applies to any estimate given. Any civil servant or Department can err, up or down. That was the best effort put into it by the DPP, and I would have thought it should have had more consideration. I would suggest that you ask our Chairman to consider this matter further with the Comptroller and Auditor General. Perhaps we should look at what that submission was, send for it and also have a look at the Minister’s reply to investigate it further. The figure given by Mr. Liddy may be an underestimate as much as an overestimate and there might be substantial savings to be achieved by the taxpayer.

Acting Chairman.—Before you go on, at this point I would like to call Mr. O’Farrell.

Mr. O’Farrell.—On a point of clarification I should say that I did not state categorically that a full-time barrister would definitely not get a hearing on a major criminal case, only that to the best of my knowledge it is not certain. It is a problematic issue. Perhaps the Accounting Officer could confirm that it is not certain. I can say that there is no policy in cases where we know that solicitors can appear. As I mentioned to the Chairman, we are recruiting additional full-time solicitors to prosecute cases for the Chief State Solicitor’s Office for that purpose — to save counsels fees. I can assure the Deputy that that is going to save much more than £125,000. Where there is not a policy issue we are recruiting staff and we are saving the money. But a major change like that — it is then a policy issue and there is at least a question about a hearing. That might help to clarify the matter.

Acting Chairman.—I think that Deputy Taylor’s comments are based on knowledge of the legal system. That certainly merits consideration. I would have to agree that it is a policy matter for Government.

Deputy Taylor.—I must say that I find it hard to see that there can be some contrast put in on a policy issue, that it is all right from a policy point of view to take on additional solicitors in the Chief State Solicitor’s office but not all right from a policy point of view to take on additional solicitors or barristers to conduct prosecutions for the Director of Public Prosecutions. I cannot see that there should be any very major distinction drawn between those two positions. Nor do I make the point that in every single case in every single prosecution they should be conducted by an in-house solicitor or barrister. Of course I fully accept there will always be special cases, difficult cases, complex cases like the O’Hare case and so on where it would be necessary to get some particular specialist and to go outside the in-house staff that could be available. All I am saying is that for the overwhelming bulk of run of the mill cases it would be perfectly appropriate to do that. I would imagine it was on that basis that the submission from the DPP was put forward.

Acting Chairman.—I am sorry to interrupt you, but I think that Mr. O’Farrell wants to clarify that particular point.

Mr. O’Farrell.—With respect again on a point of clarification in augmenting the staff of the Chief State Solicitor’s office will mean that they are doing the same type of work as they have always been doing. It is just that instead of having, let us say, 15 people doing it you might now have 20. There is no policy change there; it is just more of the same. For the DPP to take full-time, paid barristers on to his staff, effectively deputy prosecutors, would be a major change in the prosecution of crime in the State. That would be a policy issue. In the Chief State Solicitor’s office we are augmenting staff; this includes solicitors, legal clerks and legal assistants doing what they have always been doing only doing more of it more economically to save the State money and for greater cost efficiency. That is not a policy issue.

Deputy Taylor.—I am quite happy with the proposal to get some additional solicitors into the Chief State Solicitor’s office but I would make the point that serious consideration should also be given to taking on barristers there as well as solicitors on the same basis. I believe that substantial savings could be achieved there. I want to ask Mr. Liddy about this very long list of barristers who were briefed in various cases. I took a note that he said that many of these are junior counsel who are taken on to conduct cases for the DPP in the District Court. Is that right? Did I hear you correctly?

Mr. Liddy.—Yes, that is right.

Deputy Taylor.—Has consideration been given to retaining the services of solicitors rather than counsel to conduct prosecutions in the District Court, and would Mr. Liddy agree that it would be considerably cheaper to do that and that the District Court is the appropriate court for solicitors to practise in? It is normally solicitors who practice in the District Court, is it not? Could there not be substantial savings or has any consideration been given to retaining solicitors rather than barristers in District Court prosecutions?

Mr. Liddy.—We, of course, would not have any partiality towards barristers as opposed to solicitors prosecuting in the District Court or, indeed, other courts, but there just would not be, we believe, solicitors available to prosecute in the District Courts or elsewhere other than when employed on a full-time basis as civil servants.

Deputy Taylor.—You believe there would not be? Has the DPP ever investigated that seriously? Has he ever consulted with the law society, with the various local Bar associations up and down the country, with the Association of Criminal Lawyers and so on? Has any realistic attempt been made to check out whether there would be solicitors who would be prepared to conduct prosecutions for the State in the District Court, because I believe that there are plenty who for a fee, a good deal less than a barrister’s fee would be very competent to do it in the District Court where solicitors do practice and would be very happy and quite prepared to do it in every town in Ireland.

Mr. Liddy.—I honestly do not know whether the Director has considered this aspect. I would have thought such solicitors were not available but I accept what you say now and we would have no objection, of course, to such solicitors prosecuting and I will make inquiries into the matter.

Acting Chairman.—Could I ask you, Mr. Liddy, to send a note to the Committee on that.

Mr. Liddy.—Yes.

Deputy Taylor.—When the files are sent up to the DPP, did I understand you to say that recommendations would come from the local gardaí or the local State solicitor or Chief State Solicitor as to whether there should be a prosecution or not, or do they simply send up the statements and say, “There it is. Do we go to court or do we not.”

Mr. Liddy.—The letter from the garda in charge of the matter and the letter from the State solicitor or Chief State Solicitor’s office to our office could contain recommendations as to whether they should be a prosecution, could contain other information that they would consider useful to us prior to our taking the decision as to whether to prosecute. As a general rule those letters will have something of assistance to us.

Deputy Taylor.—Far from being of assistance to you, would you not consider perhaps that it is bad practice that a local Garda officer or even a State solicitor should get involved in recommendations one way or the other having regard to the fact that the statutory decision on whether to initiate a prosecution or not is vested in the Director of Public Prosecutions and that it would not be appropriate for anybody to try to influence the Director of Public Prosecutions either to bring a prosecution or not to bring a prosecution, and that the proper way to handle it, perhaps, might be simply for the statements and all the information to be prepared on a file and submitted to the Director of Public Prosecutions saying “There it is, here is the position, do we go or do we not”?

Mr. Liddy.—I would have thought that recommendations and views in general on cases are of assistance to our office. The more views you have on anything, assuming that those views are backed up by some basis for them, the more helpful it is to the person taking the decision as to what that decision should be.

Acting Chairman.—Time is running out and Deputy Dennehy wishes to speak.

Deputy Taylor.—I do apologise to my colleagues for holding them up. Does the Office of the DPP have any kind of investigation role where crime is concerned? In other words, does it happen that a file comes up for a decision by the DPP and the DPP would reply back to the local Garda or State Solicitor’s office saying “There is not enough as it is; make further inquiries, consult Mr. X or Miss Y, check this out’, research there, carry out further investigations to see if this file can be brought up to scratch to warrant a prosecution? Is that kind of function dealt with by your office?

Mr. Liddy.—It is indeed dealt with by our office very often and the Garda comply with our requests thoroughly.

Deputy Taylor.—I apologise to my colleagues.

Deputy Dennehy.—Not at all. Could I say, I am greatly relieved. I thought my own lack of knowledge of the Department would be an embarrassment to me today but it is good to hear Deputy Teylor having to ask so many questions about fellow professionals. It has taken a load off my mind, really. There are two general points I would like to make, Chairman. The first is on your own comment that life is taken very lightly in this country. I certainly would not agree with you on that point. I think it is totally incorrect.

The second point is directed to Mr. Liddy. I am accepting the present situation but I want to say that I join with two or three speakers in saying that, in general, the greatest critical comment made about the DPP’s office is the non-publication of reason for not prosecuting, particularly in some high profile cases. I will put it that way. I accept the present position. I accept what Mr. Liddy is saying and the reason for it but he should bear in mind that it is the most common critical comment. I do not hear people really complaining about delays or high cost or anything in that area but that is a factor and Mr. Liddy might bear it in mind because it is drawing criticism on the office that may not be necessary. The two sides of the political argument about employing senior counsel shows the difference between buying and selling. In one case, Deputy Taylor referred to “hawking about in the Bar Library. I certainly did not think that would be the kind of expression one would use in taking on such eminent people as senior counsel. Then there was reference to competing in the marketplace. I want to get on to the scale of fees. We have got a very good run-down on the mechanics and method of using the legal profession but is there such a thing as a scale of fees or is it a free-for-all? I appreciate that that may be a most inappropriate term to use but the description was used earlier and again, it would seem to be in total conflict with Deputy Taylor’s last point about taking on people. The term was used: “very good barristers”. I appreciate that people build up a profile. Do you have to pay their scale, the fee that they can demand or is there some set fee in the legal profession? This is an area of mystery to people not involved in the legal profession. Could I get some idea as to the existence of a scale of fees? Deputy Flood dealt with the actual hours, time and method. Is there a scale that one can base a case on?

Mr. Liddy.—There is a standard fee proposed by us for barristers in the average Circuit Court prosecution. We propose a fee always and it will be that standard fee then in the great majority of Circuit Court cases when we are asking a particular barrister to prosecute such a case. That barrister can accept that fee and prosecute or reject it, in which case it is up to us to decide whether to raise the fee or to look for somebody else. In other cases, that is to say, in other courts, we will propose a certain fee for the barrister always, and it is up to that barrister to decide whether or not to accept it.

Deputy Dennehy.—So it really is a free-for-all, particularly with the bigger fish, the better known barristers?

Mr. Liddy.—Our fees are within a range, really. In the great majority of cases the range of fees that we have in mind is appropriate. We find that we get very good barristers for those fees and we would not get them if we paid any less.

Deputy Dennehy.—On that point, coming back to the nitty-gritty, the preparation of a budget, and taking Mr. Liddy’s earlier point about the cases that crop up — and he quoted one well-known one — is it almost impossible to prepare an Estimate for the year, particularly under the heading of fees to counsel? Just listening briefly over the past few hours, I would say it is impossible to produce an accurate Estimate.

Mr. Liddy.—Yes. That is exactly why we do occasionally require Supplementary Votes. We do not know from year to year how many prosecutions there will be and of what kind, and what sort of costs will be awarded against us. We can only hazard a guess.

Deputy Dennehy.—That would lead me to my next point and I take the point that Mr. Liddy prepared his case, which Deputy Taylor dealt with at length, for the major policy change — and it would be a major policy change to have that office prosecuting instead of the State. It is no good saying it would be anything else. The estimate of potential savings of £125,000, is a fairly small sum, but we should not lose sight of the fact that the fees for counsel were 33⅓ per cent in error last year. They were out to the tune of £255,000, so to say that there is a potential saving of £125,000 over a year seems to be a bit hit and miss, with all due respect. As a non-professional, I would say there might be a little conflict or competition between the State prosecutor’s office and the Office of the DPP. I do not know whether that is correct and it may be unfair to say it, but if the State prosecutor’s office lose work, the DPP’s office gain it.

I appeciate that there may be some sort of overlap. I just want to make that point and throw out a figure. There is always a danger from these meetings — particularly if someone goes along down the trail — that that figure of £125,000 will be quoted in headlines as a potential saving which is being ignored by the Minister or the Department.

Deputy Taylor.—It is a conjectural figure.

Deputy Dennehy.—Yes, it is, very much so, bearing in mind what was done earlier. I am no expert in this area but I do think that there can be an element of competition. It is an area of policy which is a little beyond our brief. We are certainly here to advise and to look for value for money but I do think that that is a policy decision. Going back to the original point I think the office are open to unfair criticism in that under the present rule, they do not publish a reason for not proceeding with a prosecution. In the interests of the State generally, it would be good to change that situation.

Acting Chairman.—I would just like, before we conclude operations today, to endorse what Deputy Dennehy said earlier. Speaking personally and for him, if not for the entire Committee, I look forward to the day when legislation is introduced to enable your office to give reasons, particularly in significant or major cases. I think it will open up your office to the public in a very acceptable manner. I think that your office, as well as the State, will benefit from such legislation.

Just before we finish, could I ask Mr. Liddy how much specifically the Dessie O’Hare case cost? How much was paid out in counsels fees in their entirety? Who received what?

Mr. Liddy.—In the Dessie O’Hare case, there were eight defendants in total. The cost of barristers’ fees, including VAT, was approximately £52,000.

Acting Chairman.—For two days’ hearing?

Mr. Liddy.—First of all, apart from the preparation aspect which I mentioned earlier, the cases of those eight defendants were not all heard together. There were four separate prosecutions on at least four different occasions. I do not know the number of days in total that those cases took. Although it is referred to as the Dessie O’Hare case, it was four cases.

Deputy Taylor.—Did the defendants in all those cases all pay their own costs?

Mr. Liddy.—The defendants were probably on legal aid.

Deputy Taylor.—So their costs would have been paid by the State also.

Mr. Liddy.—Yes.

Acting Chairman.—Free legal aid? I believe they had a private income also at that time. Mr. Liddy, I would like to thank you and your officials for your attendance here today. We had an interesting discussion with very interesting recommendations from Deputy Taylor who is a specialist in that area, and possibly at some stage they will be taken on board.

The witness withdrew.

The Committee adjourned.