Before you pass from this, without moving any amendment, might I call the attention of the Minister to the word "merits" in line 5. The clause reads:—

"Where, before trial, or at any stage of a trial, it appears to the court that the indictment is defective, the court shall make such order for the amendment of the indictment as the court thinks necessary to meet the circumstances of the case, unless, having regard to the merits of the case, the required amendments cannot be made without injustice."

I think the word "merits" is liable to misinterpretation or misapprehension, and I think the word "facts" would be better than the word "merits" there. "Merits" is one of those curious words that means nothing.

Is not the difficulty as to both of these words this, that neither the facts nor the merits at that stage be before the court at all?

I agree, but if it is to remain at all I think "merits" a more objectionable word than "facts."

The question of the materiality or sufficiency of the indictment comes up before the merits or the facts are opened at all, and how is it possible for a court, when the point is raised about the relevancy of the indictment, to say anything about the facts or merits of the case which has not been opened, and of which the court knows nothing?

I see that.

I think it would be wiser to leave out "having regard to the merits of the case"; and then it might read: "Unless the required amendments cannot, in the opinion of the court, be made without injustice."

I would respectfully agree, and I would suggest it to the Minister.

I will look into it between now and the Report Stage.

You see the difficulty. If these words were left out, and the required amendments, in the opinion of the court, cannot be made without injustice.

Clauses 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12 put, and agreed to.

CLAUSE 13.

There is just one point I want to raise in connection with Clause 13, and that is as to the condition of the bond or recognizance that is given by a person who gets bail. This recognizance is intended, apparently, to apply to a person who gets bail in the District Court in a case which is not intended to go beyond the District Court.

The condition of the within-written recognisance is such, that whereas the said A. B. was this day charged before me, the Justice within mentioned for that (etc., as in the warrant); if, therefore, the said A. B. will appear at the next sitting of the District Court (or of the Circuit Court, or of the High Court, or of the Central Criminal Court, as the case may be) to be holden in and for the district (or as the case may be) and there surrender himself into the custody of the keeper of the (common gaol) there, and plead to such indictment.

That only applies to an indictment where the case is tried in the Circuit Court, the Central Criminal Court, or the High Court. I suggest that after the word "indictment" the words "or complaint" should be added. It would then apply to persons who obtain bail in respect of a charge never intended to go beyond the District Court.

Would "charge" be a better word—"plead to such charge or indictment"?

I think so.

It wants that inserted I think, because the object plainly was to enable recognisances to be entered into at the District Courts to appear at subsequent sittings of that court. This part would limit it, not to a District Court, but only to the court in which the indictment could be made against him.

I wonder would any alteration be necessary. It goes on to say: "As may be preferred against him by the Attorney-General of Saorstát Eireann."

I would leave out the words "as may be preferred against him." I do not think they are necessary.

Would you leave out the words "by the Attorney-General of Saorstát Eireann"?

Yes.

Very well. "And plead to such charge or indictment as may be preferred against him."