CHECK AGAINST DELIVERY
Courts (No. 2) Bill 2016
Seanad Éireann Second Stage
Statement
by
David Stanton TD
Minister of State at the Department of Justice and Equality
with special responsibility for Equality, Immigration, and Integration
9 May 2017
I move: “that the Bill be now read a second time”.
A Chathaoirleach, Members of the House and members of the public in
attendance today, I am pleased to have this opportunity to introduce the
Courts (No. 2) Bill 2016. I look forward to engaging with Members as we
progress the Bill through the various Stages. The purpose of the Bill is to
provide part of the legislative framework necessary for the introduction of
what is termed “the third payment option” in relation to road traffic
offences in respect of which a fixed charge notice may be served under Part
3 of the Road Traffic Act 2010.
This short Bill of just four sections is centred around the amendment, for
technical reasons, of section 1 of the Courts (No. 3) Act 1986. It will
allow for the integrated printing of a summons and the related fixed charge
notice for serving on persons alleged to have committed certain road
traffic offences. This will ensure that those who commit such offences can
be brought fully to account.
In this respect, the Courts (No. 2) Bill 2016 is a joint initiative between
the Tánaiste as Minister for Justice and Equality, and the Minister for
Transport, Tourism and Sport, Shane Ross TD. The intention would be that
when enacted, its reforming measures will be made operative by Minister
Ross through his commencement of section 44 of the Road Traffic Act 2010 –
that being the section which provides the legislative basis to bring these
reforms into practical effect. This Courts (No.2) Bill will, therefore,
provide the legal nuts and bolts for the desired reform while section 44 of
the Road Traffic Act of 2010 will trigger that reform into operation. The
designated date for this to happen, including with the relevant IT supports
in place, is 1st June 2017.
The reform objective behind the very technical provisions of today’s Bill
is to resolve an unintended legal loophole which has emerged over time. At
present, under the Road Traffic Act 2002, a person who does not pay a fixed
charge notice, within the 56 days set down in law, is served with a
summons. At that point the person has no further payment option and must
attend court. However, persons regularly appear in court and state that
they did not receive the original fixed charge notice, and many such cases
are dismissed by the Courts. In these cases neither the fixed charge nor
the penalty points end up being applied. This can even happen in cases
where a person might not be taking issue with the alleged infringement
concerned.
As the law stands at the moment, a fixed charge notice offence affords two
payment options before a summons is issued requiring a person to attend
court. That is to say,
· a first period of 28 days during which the person may pay the fixed
amount, followed by,
· a second consecutive period of 28 days, during which the person may
pay the fixed amount plus 50%.
The key objective now proposed under the Courts (No. 2) Bill is to provide
the essential technical and administrative measures to enable the
introduction of a “third payment option”, that is to say payment of the
fixed amount plus 100%, while upholding any penalty points concerned
without necessitating further Court or Garda time. This third option will
be made available up to seven days before the date on which an offender
will otherwise have been summoned to appear before the court. If a person
takes up this option, proceedings in respect of the alleged offence will be
discontinued and the person need not attend Court.
This is a short but highly technical Bill of four sections. I think it is
important to note that the Bill as passed by Dáil Éireann contains some
differences, principally related to drafting, compared to the Bill as
initiated in December 2016. These differences arise from Government
amendments which were accepted at Committee Stage in the Dáil. I will now
endeavour to summarise the provisions of the Bill as passed by Dáil Éireann
as follows:
Section 1 of the Bill provides for the definition of the term “Act of 1986”
as meaning the Courts (No. 3) Act 1986 that being the Act which sets out in
primary law the provisions relating to the issue of District Court
summonses in relation to offences.
Section 2 of the Bill amends section 1 of the 1986 Act in the form of five
amendments as set out in paragraphs (a) to (e). The amendment of section 1
of the Act of 1986 is the primary purpose of the Bill. Section 1 of the
Act of 1986 deals with the issue of summonses in relation to offences as a
matter of administrative procedure. In 2004, the Act of 1986 was recast,
principally for the purpose of allowing for the issue of a summons to be
effected by transmitting it by electronic means to the person who applied
for it. This allowed for the issue of summonses electronically by the
relevant court office in addition to the issue of summonses manually. The
introduction of the “third payment option” requires not only the issue of
summonses by electronic means but also the creation of the summons document
in an automatic manner.
The drafting approach to achieve this objective has undergone a revision by
the Office of the Attorney General since the Bill was published in December
last year. The original drafting approach in the Bill as initiated sought
to integrate the new method of the creation of a summons in an automatic
manner with existing provisions of the Act of 1986, particularly those
relating to the notion of an original summons document and true copy
summons. However, in the new automated system there is no longer
considered to be a need for a physical original in circumstances where both
the original and the copy are created from the same source data and on foot
of an automated process. This changed drafting approach is now
incorporated into the Bill as passed by Dáil Éireann.
Paragraph (a) adds a new section 1(2A) to the Act of 1986 which provides
that the issue of a summons by electronic means in accordance with section
1(2) of the Act of 1986 shall be deemed to have been effected where the
appropriate court office transmits by electronic means of all the
information necessary to create the summons in an automatic manner. Under
this provision the creation of the summons occurs when it is printed on
paper in legible form by electronic means.
Paragraph (b) adds a new section 1(4A) to the Act of 1986 in a way which is
intended to allow for the automated processing of batches of summonses or
applications for summonses.
Paragraph (c) adds a new section 1(8A) to the Act of 1986 which provides
that references in other enactments to an original summons or a true copy
of a summons shall be construed as references to the summons as created,
this is printed on paper, under the new system.
Paragraph (d) substitutes section 1(9) of the Act of 1986. This is
essentially a restatement of the existing provision with the substitution
of a presuming clause for the deeming clause which is in the Act of 1986 at
present. However, the legislative effect is intended to be essentially
the same.
Paragraph (e) adds a new section 1(9A) to the Act of 1986 which provides
for a presumption that the summons created under the new subsection (2A) is
created on the basis of the information transmitted by the relevant court
office.
Section 3 makes specific provision in relation to a summons to be issued in
circumstances where the person who is alleged to have committed a specified
road traffic offence is a member of the Garda Síochána. At present,
section 88(3) of the Courts of Justice Act 1924 and the relevant District
Court Rules include a provision that a summons against a person who is a
member of the Garda Síochána shall be signed by a Judge. This latter
procedure cannot be accommodated in the proposed new streamlined
arrangements for the creation of a summons in an automatic manner.
Accordingly, section 3 provides for an exception to be made from the
general rule requiring signature by a Judge. The Bill as initiated had
also included an offence in relation to which a fixed penalty notice shall
be served under section 29 of the Road Traffic Act 2010. However, a
Government amendment, accepted at Dáil Committee Stage deleted this element
as it is not directly linked to the third payment option and the issue can
be revisited as part of a wider review of the summons process under which
it is a more logical fit.
Section 4 of the Bill deals with its short title; its collective citation
and construction with the Courts (Supplemental Provisions) Acts; and its
commencement by means of ministerial order.
I commend this Bill to the House as a means of closing an undesirable
loophole in the application of the Road Traffic Acts. It has the potential,
if brought to enactment, to increase payment on foot of the relevant fixed
charge notices, to ensure the application of the relevant penalty points
and to keep down the number of cases that would otherwise go on to take up
valuable Court and Garda time. This will provide further means of ensuring
that those who commit such offences on our roads can be brought fully to
account.