THE EARL OF MILLTOWNasked Her Majesty's Government, By what authority the Attorney General for Ireland had transferred the case of Regina v. Matthew Smyth, committed in January last for trial by the Ballymore-Eustace Bench to the Naas Quarter Sessions, from that Court to the Assizes, without any communication to that Bench on the subject; and, whether Her Majesty's Government approve of the conduct of their law officer in thus ignoring the magistrates and overriding the law of the land?
§ LORD CARLINGFORD (LORD PRIVY SEAL),in reply, said, that, since he first saw the Question of the noble Earl on the Notice Paper, he applied to his right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General for Ireland, who stated that this Matthew Smyth was committed to the Quarter Sessions on a charge of indecent assault. His right hon. and learned Friend said that, having read and considered the information in the case, he came to the conclusion that it would be more properly tried at the Assizes, and, in the exercise of his undoubted right, he directed that it should be there tried accordingly. He further said that that was a right inherent in his office as Public Prosecutor in all criminal cases, and that it was a right very frequently exercised on occasions like the present. That was the only answer he could give. It appeared to him (Lord Carlingford) to be quite sufficient; and he was only surprised that the noble Earl should have thought it necessary to raise such a question, and that he should say that the Attorney General for Ireland had overridden the law of the land, because he had transferred the case to the Assizes, where, in his opinion, it could be better tried.
THE EARL OF MILLTOWNsaid, that, no doubt, the Attorney General for Ireland was a high authority; but he was clearly wrong in his law upon this point, for he had no right whatever ex propriamotu to act as he had done in removing a case to another Court.
§ LORD HARLECHwished to know whether the right was conferred by Statute, or by the Common Law? If the former was the case, under what Statute had the Attorney General for Ireland acted in this matter?
§ LORD CARLINGFORD (LORD PRIVY SEAL),in reply, said, that the right was exercised under the Common Law.
§ VISCOUNT CRANBROOKsaid, he was of opinion that it was not in the power of the Attorney General for Ireland to remove a case without first obtaining an order of the Court for that purpose. He would further point out that the witnesses to be examined had been bound over to appear at the Quarter Sessions, and they could not be required to attend at the Assizes without an order of the Court. He thought such a course of proceeding very strange and unusual.
§ LORD FITZGERALDsaid, there wore many eases in which it was the duty of the Attorney General for Ireland to have a cause removed from one Court to another, and he had no doubt that the Attorney General had performed that duty properly and conscientiously, and for the public good; but it was a mistake to suppose that the Attorney General had any authority to direct the removal or transfer of the cause, for that could only be accomplished by an order of the Court; and probably, if the case was looked into, it would be found that there was such an order. If there was no such order, the proceeding was irregular.
§ VISCOUNT CRANBROOKsaid, however that might be, he held that the order of the Court was necessary for the transfer of the case. He entirely disputed the right of the Attorney General for Ireland to call witnesses from one place to another.
§ LORD COLERIDGEsaid, he was glad that the question had been raised. As regarded it, he must be allowed to express his entire concurrence in the remarks of the noble Viscount opposite (Viscount Cranbrook). He did not quite understand how this matter had been done without any application to the Court. In this country, as in Ireland, 672 on a proper application by the Attorney General, such a transfer of jurisdiction was allowed as a matter of course, where the Court was satisfied that it would be best for the administration of justice; but he had never known it done without the consent of the Court. Most certainly no such power as this existed in the case of anyone in this country, even if it did in the case of the Attorney General for Ireland.