Politicians routinely bombard the Department of Justice with futile requests on behalf of people before the courts, writes Mark Brennock, Political Correspondent
Almost four times a week on average, a civil servant in the Department of Justice produces a stock letter and sends it to a TD, senator or MEP. This letter takes one of two forms.
The first is a reply to a politician whose query relates to the Department's courts policy division. The politician may have been asking about a constituent who feels they were treated unfairly by a judge; thinks a fine imposed on them is too high; wants more time in which to pay a fine; wants a judicial review of their case; or wants their driving licence restored.
The stock answer says: "Dear (politician's name): You were in touch with me recently on behalf of (name) regarding court proceedings in which s/he is involved. The position is that the courts are, subject only to the Constitution and the law, independent in the exercise of their judicial functions, and it is not open to the Minister to comment or intervene in any way on the conduct or decision of any individual court case which is a matter entirely for the presiding judge."
Nothing could be clearer. However, the message often does not appear to get through. Deputies and senators write again and again along the same lines to the Minister, and receive the same response each time.
The second kind of letter comes in response to representations about prisoners. Politicians ask whether a particular prisoner can get day release for a family occasion; they say they are concerned about the safety of a particular prisoner; or they seek a transfer of a prisoner to another prison.
Again, there is a standard answer, with a few variations: "(The prisoner) was sentenced to (jail term) for (details of crime). He is serving his sentence in (name of prison) and is not scheduled for release until (date). In view of this, the Minister is not prepared to authorise his transfer to an open prison."
Again, the position is quite clear. The Minister will not intervene in the administration of the prison service. There may be rare occasions when he does so, but a reading of the 68 representations sent to the Prison Service since January 1st this year provides no evidence of this.
The vast majority of representations sent by politicians are therefore pointless. What's more, most of the politicians who make these representations must know this to be the case. But the aim of the politicians' involvement is not necessarily to achieve anything concrete on behalf of the individual.
"It's a game," said one frank official yesterday. "They get a bit of paper to give the constituent to show they did something."
Several deputies yesterday agreed there was a routine and pointless circle of communication that go on here. A constituent writes asking the politician to do something they simply can't do. Rather than admit their powerlessness, the TD writes to the Minister enclosing the constituent's letter. They wait for the stock response, put it in an envelope with a covering note explaining how they have done their best for the constituent, and post it back.
"It's not just Justice," said one deputy yesterday. "I'm asked to get on to various departments all the time seeking things I know I can't get. I could tell the constituent that I can do nothing but [names constituency rival] does dozens of these letters every week and makes them all feel he is doing his best for them. Should I lose their votes by being honest?"
Most, but not all, of the 233 representations released by the Department of Justice yesterday appear to fit into the "pointless" category. However, some draw the Minister's attention to genuine cases of hardship, while others concern broader policy issues rather than just individual cases.
Before releasing the information yesterday, the Department deleted all names of the individuals involved in the cases. In many cases other identifying details such as the charges they faced, the length of their sentences or the prisons in which they were detained are also deleted. The deletions make it difficult to assess the nature of many of the representations.
It is possible here only to give a flavour of the representations made. One of the Taoiseach's representations concerned the fines imposed on a constituent. While it is not clear what exactly was being sought, the Minister replied with his rote statement about the independence of the courts and his inability to intervene.
The Taoiseach also passed on representations concerning a family law case, although it is not known what these representations were seeking. Another was on behalf of a man concerning the funds of his mother, who was a ward of court.
Yet another concerned a man involved in court proceedings.
Many are simply passing on representations from constituents: TDs in these cases do not associate themselves with the the constituent's request, but merely pass on the query for comment.