Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Friday, 30 May 1930

Vol. 35 No. 3

In Committee on Finance. - Vote No. 26—Law Charges (Resumed).

Question again proposed:
That a sum not exceeding £40,373 be granted to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1931, for the Expenses of Criminal Prosecutions and other Law Charges including a Grant in relief of certain Expenses payable by Statute out of Local Rates.—(Minister for Finance.)

In order to make clear my main point of criticism on this Vote I would draw the attention of the House to two separate items, namely, sub-head B and sub-head G. Sub-head B devotes public money to the purpose of paying State prosecutors, and sub-head G provides payment for the defence of public officials. Now, obviously, there is here a certain conflict of interest. In the legal profession when there is a conflict of interest a lawyer is not allowed to take up a case from both sides. No lawyer, except in a very peculiar kind of case where there is consent, is allowed to instruct counsel on two sides of a case. The reasons for that are perfectly obvious. Here we had cases where the Government was, upon the one hand, employing counsel to appear for the prosecution of public officials, and on the other hand was also employing those who were to defend the public officials. This wrong system ceased to be merely an abstract question in the case of George Gilmore. The old practice was different. Formerly, the Crown would allow a person who was instigating the prosecution of a public official to employ his own solicitor and counsel, even though the State would have to pay the costs afterwards. That is not the system now, and we have strong reasons for objecting to the present system being adopted, whereby, as in this case, the Government employ their own counsel and so on. In the case of Mr. Gilmore, he employed in the court of first instance his own counsel, but when it came to the higher court it was the State took control of the whole case, and the final result of the case was in the opposite direction to the tendency there had been on the prima facie evidence. The result was extremely unsatisfactory. Evidence was given that certain members of the Guards had been instructed to arrest Mr. Gilmore every time they saw him. The result of that action has been that Mr. Gilmore is still being persecuted.

I do not wish to follow that matter any further, for it does not arise on this particular Vote. What does arise is the very wrong method adopted by the Department of appointing those who will act on behalf of persons taking such actions as George Gilmore had to take. Under those circumstances it really leaves the general public with the impression that a man who takes action which develops into proceedings involving a prosecution has no chance of getting justice, because the person who is acting on his behalf is the person who is going to suffer most, not merely financially, but because it means a direct attack on the higher policy of Government. This is not merely a question of serious principle, but a question which is going to arise frequently in the course of the next year, and the Government anticipate that, because whereas last year they estimated for only £200 being spent under this particular sub-head of defence of officials for next year they have fixed the sum at £800. Of course they are aware that proceedings are pending in several cases against them. There were other cases of a civil nature where damages amounting to £245 were obtained before a jury. I take it that the actual damages are not paid by the State but the law costs involved. I do not know who pays the damages. I suppose the individuals are obliged to pay, and I do not know if the individuals are always a good mark. I think if the State is paying one it might as well pay the other at the same time. In any case, from the Estimate it is anticipated that a much larger sum will be spent under this sub-head during the coming year. In view of the issue that is going to be raised again and again I suggest to the Department in order that respect for the law may be established that they should act in as impartial a manner as they are capable of, and whoever is called into a case by a client in the first instance should be allowed to act throughout the case, or anybody whom the client chooses. There is nothing revolutionary about that. In fact it is the other system that is revolutionary, and that system is not one which was in vogue in this country before under the Crown. The present practice was not the practice according to English law, and it is not the practice in England today. I do not suggest that because it is English it is good, but certainly the old system is far better and smacked less of a tyranny than the present system.

The only other criticism I would make with regard to this Vote applies to sub-head A, which refers to the draftsman. There has been a certain amount of delay in this House in the matter of draftsmanship. Drafting facilities have not been given to various members of this House who wish to draft Bills, and the result is that severe criticism has been made of Bills introduced by individual members, and even by Parties. I suggest it would be wise economy to spend a little more money and have a second principal draftsman. It is not conceivable that there is not at the Irish Bar another man of equal capacity and equal brains who would be able to pick up a skill of proper draftsmanship in a very short time equal to the skill which is possessed by the present draftsman. No one questions his skill or ability, but there is only one chief draftsman and every Bill must pass under his supervision. As he is an extremely conscientious man he is unwilling to let anything pass that he has not supervised, and the result is that if he happens to be on a holiday legislation is held up. At all times it is impossible for members of the House to have expert advice and assistance except by special permission of the draftsman.

I would suggest, therefore, to the Minister that it would be far better, and would really be an economy of the time of the House, if Bills were ready sooner. There is an amount of legislation pending, and there are short Bills which individual Deputies could introduce if they had the opportunity of getting the expert advice of the draftsman. It is no use going to the ordinary counsel, no matter how skilled he is, because the Government adhere to the methods of the Parliamentary draftsman, and they wish their legislation to be uniform in technique, and although you may get very learned information upon the phraseology of a Bill, still it will have to be subject to severe criticism later on, and that, I submit, is a waste of time. It would be far better to have a second draftsman, and in that way to facilitate Deputies in the work which to many of us gives most satisfaction, namely, constructive Parliamentary work apart from all political controversy.

I hope that the Minister will look into these two questions, but especially it is a matter of public policy that the greatest amount of independence should be left to those professional persons employed for the purpose of prosecuting public officials and that there should be the least amount of interference between the client and the professional persons employed. After all, when the State employs counsel in this way, naturally the person originating the action and the witnesses will not have the same confidence, will not speak with the same frankness; there will be a feeling that they are talking to the counsel for the defence rather than to the counsel for the prosecution. This is an extremely serious matter. If the Government would take up a proper line on this question, it would do a considerable amount to make the public feel that the Government are trying to act in an impartial manner.

I note that one of the sub-heads of this Vote is for the defence of public officials, and in that connection I should like to remind the House that when the nomination for the Minister for Justice was before us for approval I pointed out that certain illegalities which were then being committed against a certain section of the population on account of their political views, and which were subsequently condoned by a vote of this House, were not likely always to be confined to one political element in the community. I did not expect that the warning which I then gave would subsequently get such ample confirmation as has been afforded by a case recently before the courts. In a case heard in the High Courts last Wednesday the facts were that two men had been arrested in Tralee, were kept in barracks for 48 hours without being brought before a peace commissioner, and eventually, when brought before a district justice, both were discharged. The men naturally sought redress for the imprisonment to which they had been subjected and they accordingly took an action against the Chief Superintendent for false imprisonment. The Circuit Court Judge, having heard the evidence, awarded damages in the case of one of the men against the Superintendent and dismissed the other case. An appeal was taken on behalf of both parties to the suit. The Superintendent appealed to the High Court against the damages awarded against him, the man who had been refused redress by the Circuit Court Judge likewise appealed. With what result? Two Judges of the High Court decided that the Chief Superintendent in this matter had acted illegally, had acted in violation of the liberty of the subject, and dismissed the Superintendent's appeal in the one case, and granted the complainants' appeal in the other.

This is not an isolated case. It happens to be a recent one. We have had other instances of similar actions being brought against Civic Guards or against Superintendents, and in almost every case the officials of the State have been mulcted in damages by the Courts of the State. I ask the Minister for Finance will part of the moneys to be voted under sub-head G go to defray the costs awarded against the Chief Superintendent in this matter? As I said, the State cannot hope to confine its illegalities always to one section of the community. If Republicans are to be subjected to unlawful attack and imprisonment, we may be quite certain that the instruments of the State in carrying out this vile policy —there is no other way in which it can be stigmatised—are not going to confine these illegalities always to the Republican element among us. Disorder breeds disorder and the ambit of disorder tends always to extend. The position now is that, so far as I can see, Civic Guards, particularly the responsible officers seem to regard themselves in their respective districts as so many Turkish pashas, pashas of three tails—the absolute rulers and arbiters of the community—and that, I put it to the Dáil, is entirely due to the fact that the majority Party in this House have condoned and connived at illegal proceedings when such proceedings have been directed against one element of the State. You cannot hope to wash your hands of responsibility. Men who are prepared to uphold the Minister for Justice in the action and the proceedings which he took in relation to certain Republican prisoners are blameworthy and culpable so far as the proceedings of the Civic Guards and Superintendent towards these men in Tralee are concerned. We cannot have it both ways. We have either to stand for even-handed administration of the law and an impartial preservation of the public peace so far as all elements of the community are concerned or else we have to make up our minds that henceforward we are not going to have law and order but anarchy in the country. Because the moneys voted under sub-head G will be used to condone and indemnify the Chief Superintendent in Tralee against the consequences which will fall upon him for the illegal arrest and imprisonment of these men, I ask the House to reject this Vote.

I want to support the plea made here for an increase in the staff in the draftsman's office. It is I think a very undesirable state of affairs that there should be a large number of important measures, the urgency of which is admitted by all parties, which cannot be proceeded with because of the congestion in this particular office. As the Minister for Finance is aware, the Minister for Industry and Commerce stated yesterday that certain Bills designed to give effect to recommendations submitted by the Food Prices Tribunal, by the Industrial Insurance Committee, by the Workmen's Compensation Committee and other bodies are fully prepared, as far as his office is concerned, but cannot be proceeded with because the arrangements in the draftsman's office do not permit of it. I do not think it would be impossible to procure additional assistance for the chief draftsman which would enable the work of the office to be speeded up. It is very unsatisfactory that abuses existing in the present social order, to which attention was drawn by tribunals and committees, in many cases over four years ago, still remain unrectified because of the inadequate staffing of this particular branch.

I also want to support the case made by Deputy Ruttledge and by Deputy Little for the alteration of the system of conducting public prosecutions. Deputy Ruttledge urged that there should be a number of recognised public prosecutors to whom would be given the work of conducting these prosecutions when they arise. At present State briefs are given out to a number of different counsel, and I have no doubt whatever that that particular practice is being used, not altogether, but to some slight extent, for the purpose of political bribery. Counsel who exercise political influence have been made adherents of the Government Party by the fact that they get occasional briefs from State solicitors. The danger that arises from such a state of affairs was very strongly emphasised by the Gilmore case, to which Deputy Little has made reference. As Deputies will remember, this individual took an action against certain members of the Civic Guard for assault. The District Justice returned the members of the Civic Guard concerned for trial to the Circuit Court. Counsel appointed by the State to conduct the prosecution, I am informed, did not examine the witnesses for the prosecution, did not cross-examine the witnesses for the defence, did not address the jury, even at the conclusion of the evidence, and consequently the members of the Civic Guard were acquitted.

It may be a good thing, from the Government point of view, to have members of the Civic Guard acquitted of certain charges in that manner, but I cannot believe they, themselves, are of the opinion that by doing so they are going to increase public respect for the Force or public confidence in the manner in which justice is administered.

The Estimate under sub-head G for the expenses of defending public officials for the coming year is four times the Estimate for last year. Are we to take it that the Minister for Finance believes that officials of the Civic Guard and other public officials are going to be brought into court and charged with illegal acts this year to an extent four times greater than last year? Possibly, of course, the increased Estimate is required for the purpose of paying fines inflicted upon members of the Guards during last year. Whether that is so or not I do not know, but I think when we have had a number of cases in court of members of the police having been convicted of illegal acts we ought to have a much clearer indication than given to us heretofore that the Government realise the gravity of the situation and intend to take steps to ensure that these things will not occur again.

Deputy Little said that fines imposed upon members of the Civic Guard in this manner should be paid by the State. I personally agree with that view. The members of the Civic Guard concerned in each case defended themselves by saying that they were obeying the orders of their superior officers. These superior officers in turn were obeying the instructions they received from the Minister for Justice, and he in turn was obeying the instructions he got from the Executive Council. The responsibility for putting the Executive Council in power is on the electorate, and the electorate therefore should be compelled to foot the bill when the illegal acts of the Executive Council result in this additional charge being imposed. I hope, however, that the increased bill, which the Minister anticipates will be submitted to the people this year, is not in consequence of any decision of the Executive Council to increase the illegal acts which are to be committed by officials under their control.

I desire to support my colleagues in their demands for some explanation of Government policy in this matter. On Wednesday night last Deputy Brady raised a question of the detention of an individual who had already been detained three months in prison and was ultimately discharged and his character vindicated. It appears that in spite of the fact that the person involved was a man of the highest character in the district and was believed by his employer to be a trustworthy person and that there was nothing whatever locally to show that was a person of criminal tendencies, nevertheless the Civic Guard took it upon themselves to arrest him. The Minister for Justice put it to us that the Civic Guard have a certain responsibility in making investigations in these matters, and very often have difficulties. It is, undoubtedly, very often hard for the officers charged with the preservation of the peace to make such investigations as they consider necessary without trespassing in some degree upon the liberty of the subject. Nevertheless I think that the law must be upheld, and no matter how humble the individual concerned may be. It is no consolation to him to find that at the end of the whole thing he is set at liberty. But there is no recompense, and there cannot be any, for the slur which has been cast upon his character and the inconvenience or loss that he has been put to. Therefore we take the matter seriously, and we say that an end should be put to that kind of thing. Across the water there has been a big campaign on this matter, and it appears necessary at this stage to have definitely stated what the functions of police officers in the Free State are in this matter of the detention of prisoners.

That would hardly arise on this Estimate.

Why not, A chinn Comhairle?

If the Ceann Comhairle says that it does not arise on this Estimate the Deputy must submit proof that it does. There were Estimates for the Gárda Síochána and for the Office of the Minister for Justice: this is an Estimate for law charges.

I suggest that it arises in this way: If the rules governing actions of the Guards are of a very clear nature, this Department will be protected under that sub-head where it has to pay for cases against the officials. I submit that it arises in that way. It is such a serious matter——

I do not think that the general question can arise. I have let the discussion go a certain distance, but I want to take exception to Deputy Derrig's point. Deputy MacEntee and Deputy Lemass went a certain distance.

If the officers who were decreed in the courts contend that they had done these things in fulfilment of what they considered their duty, I take it that this question arises.

It would have arisen on the Vote for the Gárda Síochána, and I think it was discussed on that; but this is merely a question whether there should be a sub-head in the Vote—sub-head G —for the defence of public officials. That sub-head does not involve the question of the payment of damages awarded against public officials; it is merely for the legal defence of these officials.

I accept your ruling. I support Deputy MacEntee, and I would be very glad if the Minister would tell me what exactly is the policy in regard to this matter. The question that Deputy Little raised is also one of importance. In certain cases against public officials for wrongful detention, where the plaintiffs had the advantage of independent counsel, who were employed by them personally, they secured verdicts. In other cases—I know that it is not an argument—that the plaintiffs were not in the ordinary way supported by their counsel; I have no complaint to make of the counsel as such—I agree with Deputy Little that the policy of employing counsel who are ordinarily employed as State counsel in such cases is not doing justice by the plaintiffs, that when a counsel and a solicitor are employed to defend a man they ought to continue the case, and that you ought to have a position in which a plaintiff is able to say, I think with some justice, that a case which had begun satisfactorily in the lower court was lost in the upper court by reason of the fact that the counsel that he himself would have selected was not allowed to plead.

A number of points have been raised on this Estimate which perhaps were hardly proper to it. The first point I will deal with is with reference to the draftsman's office. It is true that there has been from time to time a certain delay in the introduction of Bills through congestion in the draftsman's office, but I am afraid that the employment of additional staff would not relieve that congestion to the extent that Deputies think, because there has always been a complaint from the draftsman's office that the difficulty of completing Bills was that Departments often had not thought out the instructions adequately before sending them down to the draftsman's office, and the congestion that does exist in that office enables the Attorney-General and the draftsman more readily to return instructions to Departments for further consideration prior to proceeding with the drafting. If there were a larger staff I am afraid that we might have many more conferences between representatives of the staff and Departments, and that there would not be a very great amount of increased speed in the drafting of Bills.

I do not think that there is a good case for having a draftsman available for private Deputies. The only kind of Bill that can really be suitably handled by a private Deputy is a Bill of a very simple character in which, even if there are drafting errors, they can be quite easily amended in the House by Ministerial amendments. The real difficulty about the production of Bills is not the actual drafting at all, and the time is not taken up with the actual drafting; the time is required in the framing of full and adequate instructions, which reflect a full examination, an examination in which all points of view have, as far as possible, been taken into account. It will easily be seen that a private Deputy cannot possibly have an examination conducted on which instructions for a Bill can properly be framed. Just as in the case of Government Bills, it is practically impossible for a Department to frame adequate instructions. Even when the Bill seems to concern that Department alone, it will generally be found that when the draft of instructions is circulated to other Departments, factors that are at first apparently quite remote from the purpose of the Bill have to be taken into account. No single Department can really see the reactions of such a Bill—I am talking of a Bill of an important character, not of the simple one-clause type of amending Bill—and therefore I think that if a draftsman were provided for private Deputies, it would simply mean that the House would be congested with a mass of Bills which were not in a fit state to be brought before it. When one really examines it, I do not think there is anything in that plea.

So far as the draftsman's office is concerned, there are a couple of assistants. Recently one assistant draftsman was transferred for legal work to the Department of External Affairs, and his successor, of course, has not yet got into his stride. There have been suggestions from time to time from Departments for the employment of additional staff in the draftsman's office, but personally I was never quite satisfied that that was absolutely necessary, or that from the employment of additional help there the output they were looking for would be obtained. It may be that further help will ultimately be granted, but I am fairly satisfied that only a part of the cause of the delays arises through the comparatively small number of people available for drafting, and that as a matter of fact if a Department could fully make up its mind as to what exactly it wants before it sends down instructions the present staff would be able to do the work. Unfortunately, very often when a Department sees a draft which is produced as a result of its instructions it finds that other things have to be added and that changes have to be made.

With regard to having prosecutors chosen from a panel instead of having one or two men in charge of the work of prosecuting, from a financial point of view I do not think there is anything in it. I do not know, for instance, that if Deputy Ruttledge sent all his briefs to one junior counsel and one senior counsel he would find that he gets the work done for his clients at a cut rate. The fee would be marked on every brief, and I do not think it would make any difference in the cost whether the briefs go to one barrister or another. On the whole I do not think it is a healthy position to have, as it were, the whole Bar in a position to defend prisoners and to have one or two members of the Bar with experience in prosecuting. I think it would be healthier to have prosecuting regarded as much the normal duty that would fall to barristers as defending prisoners.

The account in sub-head D is very largely by way of refunds to county councils for witnesses' expenses and matters of that kind.

With regard to the defence of public officials, we have to take into account the fact that there is a minority, whether it is small or large, that does not accept the existing constitutional position, that there is a minority, whether small or large, that challenges the existence of the State, and that there is a tendency to attack the police by way of litigation which we would have no experience of but for the existence of that minority. If there were no attack on the State, and if there were no special tendency to try to devise prosecutions simply for the purpose of hampering and, if possible, intimidating the police, we might have a different attitude in regard to the defence of public officials from what we have at the present time. But we feel that where, say, a Civic Guard acts bona fide and without malice he should not be perhaps mulcted in a considerable sum because of some mere technical error, and we do, therefore, defend Civic Guards in cases in which there was no impropriety of conduct on their part, even although the Civic Guards might be found to have been guilty of some technical error.

May I ask the Minister if it is the judge trying the case or the Minister for Justice who is to decide whether impropriety has been committed or not? It seems to us that the question is generally settled in advance by the Minister.

Very often the judge would not feel called upon to pronounce upon any point other than the exact point before him—that is, the strict legality or otherwise of some particular act. We would have to take into account whether a policeman acted bona fide and without malice, simply for the purpose of discharging his duty in the prevention of crime and the preservation of peace and order.

There are illegalities which are not crimes.

Of course there are illegalities which are not crimes. That is something in the nature of the obvious. Reference was made to a case which was in the courts the other day. I would not be too sure about that case; I have no official information about it whatever; but I think that that appeal was brought for the purpose of having the law on the matter definitely determined. I have the impression that there was a certain view of the law upon which the Civic Guards acted, and that that has been definitely challenged, That is, with regard to the right of detention. An appeal was brought to the High Court on behalf of the superintendent for the purpose of having the law definitely determined. If that is so, then that is undoubtedly a case in which it would be proper to pay the expenses of the superintendent. If it is definitely decided that the decision of the High Court settles the matter, and if there is to be no appeal to the Supreme Court, then the law having been determined, the police will officially act in accordance with the law as so definitely determined, unless it should be altered at some future date. It does not follow when you are dealing with cases that have a political character that the decision of the court disposes of every aspect of the matter. There were certain cases recently in Dublin where damages were awarded against members of the police, and where, on the evidence before the court, they were properly awarded against the police, but the Government was not in a position to bring into court witnesses who might have been brought in if they had been ordinary cases without any political character. That is, when there is, whether it is small or large, a criminal revolutionary conspiracy in existence, it is not possible for the State to put into the witness-box all the people who could give evidence in regard to that conspiracy, or, to put it quite bluntly, if there is anybody who gives special information about such a conspiracy it would in certain cases be extremely dangerous to that man to put him into the witness-box.

We know there have been cases where people in very ordinary small prosecutions have gone into the witness-box and testified and have afterwards been attacked. The position, therefore, is that while it could not be proved in a court for these reasons that the police had sufficient grounds for the action they took, the Government is quite satisfied that they had, in fact, sufficient grounds. That is, those who gave instructions to the police, or those who gave instructions to the actual officers who instructed the individual policeman, had information and had evidence which, if it could have been brought into court, or if the people available to give it could be brought into court, would have enabled the police who were sued, and against whom damages were awarded, to have justified their actions in their entirety. But as long as you have men conspiring to use violence against the State there are going to be difficulties of that kind, difficulties both for the actual carrying out of their duties by the police and difficulties for those who instruct them.

Might I ask the Minister on that point whether he does not consider that the State should appear to be, and should be, as impartial as possible in these actions?

I am prepared to say that where you are dealing with a case such as that of Mr. Gilmore, I certainly believe that the position is different in his case, and in regard to any prosecution brought by him, from a prosecution brought by an ordinary citizen who would allege that a Civic Guard had made some attack on him. I am quite clear that I would not facilitate Mr. Gilmore, or anybody who was pursuing his particular line, in using the court as a platform for a particular style of propaganda. I believe that when a man has been returned for trial it is the duty of the State to see that he is impartially prosecuted. I was not in court and I do not know the details of this trial to which the Deputy refers, but I have no doubt that the counsel who were employed in that case carried out the prosecution in a proper manner, that they asked all the questions which it was proper for a prosecutor to ask, and took all the steps which it was right for men charged with the responsibility with which they were charged, to take, in order to enable the court to come to a decision.

I am sure that the dissatisfaction with the counsel who were prosecuting in that case was not due to any failure on their part to do their full duty in the matter, but simply because they would not indulge in the propagandist tirades which some people would have liked. I do not know who the counsel were, but I am satisfied that the attack which has been made on them, without mentioning their names, is an unjustifiable attack, and I am satisfied that any members of the Bar who accepted briefs to act in this matter acted in good faith and did their duty fully and fairly. I am quite satisfied that the dissatisfaction with them is only an illustration of the protests against not allowing somebody who may have been chosen by Mr. Gilmore to appear, and simply reflects disappointment that the trial was conducted purely as a prosecution and not as a sort of propagandist stunt.

On a point of personal explanation, I wish to say that the matter I tried to emphasise entirely was that the State places itself in an impossible position when it does not allow the plaintiff in a case like that to choose his own counsel. No matter what happens afterwards, whether the counsel employed does his best or not, the position is a wrong one; it is fundamentally a wrong position, as fundamentally wrong as if a solicitor in a case sent instructions to the counsel on conflicting sides and acts on both sides himself.

I suggest that the question whether the court has been used for political propaganda or not might be left to the judge in charge of the court and not to the Minister for Finance to extemporise here on.

Does the Minister accept the facts stated by Deputy Lemass with regard to the way in which the case was conducted by the State prosecutor?

I know nothing about the case; I did not read the report of it with any great care. I paid no special attention to it. I am perfectly satisfied that the counsel who accepted the brief to carry out the prosecution carried it out properly and without any desire to save or to prevent the conviction of those whom they were prosecuting.

Deputy Little said that something or another puts the State in an impossible position. That is practically what I have been saying. Where you have a secret conspiracy for overturning the State by violence you do create, in certain respects, an impossible position, and you cannot deal with cases arising out of such a conspiracy as you would deal with ordinary criminal offences by individuals against their neighbours or against society generally. You must take care that you are not going to allow the public money to be used, not to right any wrong and not to punish somebody who committed an offence, but simply to create propaganda for those who are attacking the State.

Does the Minister suggest that the State should not be impartial in these cases?

It should be impartial, but it should not assist people to attack the State itself.

Will the Minister state whether, when circulars are issued, any instructions are given to the Gárdaí afterwards with a view to avoiding the committing of offences which may involve the State in further damages and expenses?

I do not know that, following any prosecution in which a point of law has to be determined one way or another, any circulars are sent out. There may be, but in any case the matters come to the knowledge of the Civic Guards, and they will be acted upon by them. A Civic Guard is not going to put himself in the position of appearing before the court if it has been made clear that the law is against him.

In regard to cases such as the Dublin cases, in which damages were awarded in civil actions, the Deputy will remember that the process of harrying those who were suspected with good reason of being engaged in a conspiracy against the State began at a time when an attack was made on jurors and witnesses. It was preventive harrying and it has been successful. Possibly it will not be necessary to continue it to the extent to which it has been carried on. But, if there should be information that would indicate that it is necessary, then everything that can be done within the law in that respect will be done and, if sufficient cannot be done within the law to prevent a recurrence of attacks on jurors and witnesses, then suitable amendments will be brought into the law. Policemen will not be instructed to do anything that is illegal. They will not even be instructed to do something which, though it may be legal, would result in their finding themselves in court without the possibility of proving that what they did was, in fact, legal and correct. That was the position in which the men in the civil actions found themselves in Dublin. What they did was perfectly correct, but they were not in a position to prove it because they were dealing with a criminal conspiracy. We would not ordinarily put a policeman in that position. We would not ask him to do something which, although it was perfectly correct, might lead to his appearing as having done something illegal. It is a matter of general policy. It is not a matter, in that particular case, of rigid principle. I and everybody must see that every defeat of those people who are inclined to use violence weakens them and that the mere lapse of time tends very quickly to reduce the possibility of a recurrence of serious violence.

Question put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 64; Níl, 36.

Tá.

  • Aird, William P.
  • Anthony, Richard,
  • Beckett, James Walter.
  • Bennett, George Cecil.
  • Blythe, Ernest.
  • Bourke, Séamus A.
  • Conlon, Martin.
  • Craig, Sir James.
  • Daly, John.
  • Davis, Michael.
  • Doherty, Eugene.
  • Dolan, James N.
  • Doyle, Edward.
  • Doyle, Peadar Seán.
  • Duggan, Edmund John.
  • Dwyer, James.
  • Egan, Barry M.
  • Everett, James.
  • Fitzgerald, Desmond.
  • Fitzgerald-Kenny, James.
  • Good, John.
  • Haslett, Alexander.
  • Hassett, John J.
  • Heffernan, Michael R.
  • Hennessy, Michael Joseph.
  • Hennessy, Thomas.
  • Hennigan, John.
  • Henry, Mark.
  • Kelly, Patrick Michael.
  • Law, Hugh Alexander.
  • Leonard, Patrick.
  • Lynch, Finian.
  • Brodrick, Seán.
  • Byrne, John Joseph.
  • Carey, Edmund.
  • Coburn, James.
  • Collins-O'Driscoll, Mrs. Margt.
  • Colohan, Hugh.
  • Mathews, Arthur Patrick.
  • MacEóin, Seán.
  • McGilligan, Patrick.
  • Mongan, Joseph W.
  • Morrissey, Daniel.
  • Murphy, Timothy Joseph.
  • Nally, Martin Michael.
  • Nolan, John Thomas.
  • O'Connell, Richard.
  • O'Connell, Thomas J.
  • O'Donovan, Timothy Joseph.
  • O'Leary, Daniel.
  • O'Mahony, Dermot Gun.
  • O'Reilly, John J.
  • O'Sullivan, Gearóid.
  • O'Sullivan, John Marcus.
  • Reynolds, Patrick.
  • Rice, Vincent.
  • Roddy, Martin.
  • Sheehy, Timothy (West Cork).
  • Thrift, William Edward.
  • Tierney, Michael.
  • White, John.
  • White, Vincent Joseph.
  • Wolfe, George.
  • Wolfe, Jasper Travers.

Níl.

  • Allen, Denis.
  • Blaney, Neal.
  • Boland, Patrick.
  • Bourke, Daniel.
  • Brady, Seán.
  • Buckley, Daniel.
  • Carney, Frank.
  • Carty, Frank.
  • Colbert, James.
  • Cooney, Eamon.
  • Corkery, Dan.
  • Derrig, Thomas.
  • Fahy, Frank.
  • Fogarty, Andrew.
  • Gorry, Patrick J.
  • Goulding, John.
  • Hayes, Seán.
  • Houlihan, Patrick.
  • Jordan, Stephen.
  • Kent, William R.
  • Killilea, Mark.
  • Kilroy, Michael.
  • Lemass, Seán F.
  • Little, Patrick John.
  • Maguire, Ben.
  • McEllistrim, Thomas.
  • MacEntee, Seán.
  • Moore, Séamus.
  • Mullins, Thomas.
  • O'Reilly, Thomas.
  • Powell, Thomas P.
  • Ruttledge, Patrick J.
  • Ryan, James.
  • Sexton, Martin.
  • Sheehy, Timothy (Tipp.).
  • Ward, Francis C.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies Duggan and P.S. Doyle; Níl, Deputies Allen and Killilea.
Question declared carried.
Top
Share