asked the Minister for Justice if he will state (1) in how many cases since 1st April last the prerogative of mercy has been exercised, and (2) in each case to state (a) the offence; (b) the sentence; (c) the remission; (d) whether the trial judge recommended for or against remission, and (e) the general grounds on which remission was granted.
Ceisteanna—Questions Oral Answers. - Remission of Sentences.
Since the 1st April last the prerogative of mercy has been exercised in 97 cases, in 43 of which it was exercised with particular reference to the holding of the Eucharistic Congress in Dublin, in consequence of representations made to me to the effect that the occasion was an appropriate one for the granting of remission of sentences of imprisonment. The compilation of a return to show the particulars asked for in sub-heads (a), (b) and (c) of the second part of the question would involve a considerable expenditure of official time, and would, so far as I am aware, constitute a precedent which I am not prepared to create. As regards sub-heads (d) and (e) in the second part of the questions, I think that it is definitely contrary to the public interest to disclose such particulars.
Arising out of the Minister's reply, surely it ought not to be difficult for him to give the information asked for in sub-head (a) in the question, namely, the offence; in sub-head (b) the sentence, and in sub-head (c) the remission. Surely, in any Department of State, it ought to be very easy to find out, by reference to the Department's records, what was the offence and what was the sentence?
As I have stated in my reply, there are 97 cases. To state the offence, the sentence and the remission, would necessarily mean a very long answer and would take a very long time to deliver, but as I have stated in the answer, apart from the expenditure of public time that would be involved, I cannot find any precedent for the divulging of such information, nor can I myself see what purpose it would serve. In some of the 97 cases the remission has been as little as one day, while in others only two or three days were taken off a sentence so that a prisoner might return home on a Saturday instead of on a Monday. On this matter of the exercise of the prerogative of mercy or the kindred subject, the statutory remission of penalties, if there is any real interest shown in this House on the matter, I am prepared to prepare and circulate a paper dealing with the history and nature of this prerogative, with the statutory amendments and with the principles that, in my opinion, ought to govern the exercise of that prerogative.
I am not objecting to the exercise of the prerogative of mercy, but I must say that I am concerned about this: Here is a question asking the Minister to state the offence and the sentence. In my opinion, that would not have been too much for the Minister's Department. If that were to obtain in other Departments, we might meet with the same answer, and it would cost a good deal of time.
I should like to ask the Minister would it take two hours?
Without wishing in any way to throw doubt on the propriety of the exercise of the prerogative in any of these cases, which I know nothing at all about, ought there not to be the restraint of publicity upon the exercise of the prerogative? Is there not in normal countries some such arrangement for publicity as a restraint upon the exercise of the prerogative?