asked the Minister for Justice (a) whether Mr. Michael Cullinane, Main Street, Brosna, CoKerry, was convicted on the 14th October, 1931, at Abbeyfeale District Court of illegal fishing; (b) if he will state what penalty was imposed and whether there were any costs; (c) whether there was any appeal against that decision and, if so, what the result of the appeal was; (d) whether the penalty and costs have been remitted, and, if so (e) whether the remission was made on the recommendation of the Minister for Lands and Fisheries, and (f) on what grounds the fine and costs have been remitted.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Co. Kerry Fishery Prosecution.
I propose in my reply to deal with Questions 19 to 31 inclusive.
I protest against that, because in view of the answer of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Lands and Fisheries it stands in an entirely different category. The Parliamentary Secretary said that his authority was the Minister for Justice and Question 19 gives exactly the same.
Whenever possible, I yield to the Opposition and I would fall in with the Deputy's request wherever possible. As regards all the questions:—
"the mitigation or remission of the penalty in each of these cases was granted in accordance with the normal practice, on the recommendation of the Minister for Lands and Fisheries, who, I understand, consults the Board of Conservators in such cases. I do not propose to disclose the grounds on which mitigation was granted in these cases or the nature of the reports received from the District Justice."
As regards Question No. 19 in particular, the answer is that: "Michael Cullinane was convicted at Abbeyfeale District Court on 14th October, 1931, of an offence against the Fishery Acts. He was fined £2 and £2 costs, which sums were remitted on petition. No appeal was lodged."
On what authority did the Department of Lands and Fisheries issue instructions to the Board of Conservators to refund that £2 fine and £2 costs?
As the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Lands and Fisheries has already informed the House, this was an absolutely clear case of mistaken identity. The Gárda Síochána in the district took steps to ascertain the facts and recommended that the fine and the costs should be returned, as it was demonstrated beyond all doubt that the water-bailiff had made a mistake and that this man never should have been fined at all. That was conveyed to the Board of Conservators, not through my Department, but through the Department of Lands and Fisheries, and the Board of Conservators never demurred to the return of the money, which they never should have received.
Mr. Lynch
Except that the Board of Conservators incurred very considerable costs themselves through the prosecution of the case.
The Board of Conservators have never suggested that they should keep in their Treasury those fines or costs imposed upon a man who was not there—fines and costs imposed in error, and ordered to be paid by a man who was not there and who was erroneously convicted. They never suggested that they should keep the money. Perhaps the Deputy would inform the House whether he is speaking with the authority of the Board of Conservators?
Mr. Lynch
My authority is the Board of Conservators. I am informed of these occurrences by a letter from a member of the Board of Conservators, and if the Minister read the letter he would see that they were never informed of any such state of facts, such as, that this man was absent from the district. They accept that as correct, but that does not answer my question. My question is: On what authority is the Board ordered to hand back money in view of the fact that they have incurred expenses in bringing the prosecution?
I am willing to accept the Deputy's assurance as to the contents of the letter if the Deputy informs me that he has seen it; but whatever the form of the letter may have been, it was the Board of Conservators that returned the money, quite honestly and properly, and they never objected to doing so.
Mr. Lynch
How could they when the Minister instructed them to return it?
The suggestion evidently is that the Board of Conservators received an unauthorised and illegal order from the Minister. They never have suggested such a thing, and, of course, if the Minister was not entitled to make such an order, obviously they would not obey it. They returned this money voluntarily.
Mr. Lynch
They returned it after they received a certain letter from the Minister.
It seems to me that it would be a most extraordinary thing if they kept the money in view of the circumstances.
Question No. 20.
asked the Minister for Justice if he will state (a) with what offence under the Fisheries Acts Patrick Dunne, Sallymount, Castlepollard, was charged on the 11th May, 1932; (b) the result of the trial and whether any fine and costs were imposed; (c) whether the fine was reduced; (d) whether the reduction took place on the recommendation of the Minister for Lands and Fisheries; (e) whether the District Justice who heard the case recommended a reduction, and (f) what was the recommendation of the Board of Conservators on the matter of reducing the fine.
Patrick Dunne was convicted at Castlepollard District Court on the 11th May, 1932, of having removed from a lake trout which had been killed by unlawful means. He was fined £10 and £1 15s. 0d. costs. On petition the fine was reduced to £2.
Mr. Lynch
I was just going to raise a point on that question, and that is whether the Minister is aware, in spite of the inocuous appearance of the charge of taking a fish from a river, that it really means that the fish had been poisoned, and that that provision was put in because of the impossibility of catching persons who poison fish. I consider that that is a very grievous offence, and I should like to know whether the Minister was aware that that was behind that charge?
Speaking from recollection, and willing and ready to be corrected by the Deputy, the offence committed by this man, Dunne, was not the poisoning of fish.
Were the fish poisoned?
Mr. Lynch
I do not propose to raise questions on each individual answer, but will let them go one by one, and will keep whatever supplementaries I may have for the finish.
In cold storage.
The following questions were on the Order Paper in the name of Deputy Fionán Lynch.
To ask the Minister for Justice if he will state (a) with what offence under the Fisheries Acts Joseph Lysaght, Derry, Ennistymon, was charged on the 4th May. 1932; (b) the result of the case and whether a fine and costs were imposed; (c) whether the fine was reduced and whether the reduction took place on the recommendation of the Minister for Lands and Fisheries; (d) whether the District Justice who heard the case recommended a reduction, and (e) what was the recommendation of the Board of Conservators on the matter of reducing the fine.
To ask the Minister for Justice if he will state (a) with what offence under the Fisheries Acts, John Corrigan, Shrunakella, Castlepollard, was charged on 11th May, 1932; (b) the result of the case and whether a fine and costs were imposed; (c) whether the fine was reduced and whether the reduction took place on the recommendation of the Minister for Lands and Fisheries; (d) whether the District Justice who heard the case recommended a reduction, and (e) what was the recommendation of the Board of Conservators on the matter of reducing the fine.
To ask the Minister for Justice if he will state (a) with what offence under the Fisheries Acts, Timothy Tobin, of 2 Verdun Place, King's Island, Limerick, was charged on the 14th June, 1932; (b) the result of the trial and whether a fine was imposed; (c) whether the fine was reduced and whether the reduction took place on the recommendation of the Minister for Lands and Fisheries; (d) whether the District Justice who heard the case recommended a reduction; (e) and what was the recommendation of the Board of Conservators in the matter of reduction of the fine.
To ask the Minister for Justice if he will state (a) with what offence under the Fisheries Acts, George Burke (Senior), of Castle Street, Castleconnell, was charged on the 8th June, 1932; (b) the result of the trial and whether a fine was imposed; (c) whether the fine was reduced and whether the reduction took place on the recommendation of the Minister for Lands and Fisheries; (d) whether the District Justice who heard the case recommended a reduction; (e) and what was the recommendation of the Board of Conservators in the matter of reduction of the fine.
To ask the Minister for Justice if he will state (a) with what offence under the Fisheries Acts, Corns. McInerney, of Ayle Upper, Feakle, was charged on the 7th July, 1932; (b) the result of the trial and whether a fine was imposed; (c) whether the fine was reduced and whether the reduction took place on the recommendation of the Minister for Lands and Fisheries; (d) whether the District Justice who heard the case recommended a reduction; (e) and what was the recommendation of the Board of Conservators in the matter of reduction of the fine.
To ask the Minister for Justice if he will state (a) with what offence under the Fisheries Acts Charles Hinchy, of Ayle Lower, Feakle, was charged on the 7th July, 1932; (b) the result of the trial and whether a fine was imposed; (c) whether the fine was reduced and whether the reduction took place on the recommendation of the Minister for Lands and Fisheries; (d) whether the District Justice who heard the case recommended a reduction; (e) and what was the recommendation of the Board of Conservators in the matter of reduction of the fine.
To ask the Minister for Justice if he will state (a) with what offence under the Fisheries Acts Patrick Dawson, of Ballymote, Bruree, was charged on the 14th January, 1932; (b) the result of the trial and whether a fine was imposed; (c) whether the fine was reduced and whether the reduction took place on the recommendation of the Minister for Lands and Fisheries; (d) whether the District Justice who heard the case recommended a reduction; (e) and what was the recommendation of the Board of Conservators in the matter of reduction of the fine.
To ask the Minister for Justice if he will state (a) with what offence under the Fisheries Acts Edward Dawson, of Ballymote, Bruree, was charged on the 14th January, 1932; (b) the result of the trial and whether a fine was imposed; (c) whether the fine was reduced and whether the reduction took place on the recommendation of the Minister for Lands and Fisheries; (d) whether the District Justice who heard the case recommended a reduction; (e) and what was the recommendation of the Board of Conservators in the matter of reduction of the fine.
To ask the Minister for Justice if he will state (a) with what offence under the Fisheries Acts Martin Cunneen, of Ayle Lower, Feakle, was charged on the 7th July, 1932; (b) the result of the trial and whether a fine was imposed; (c) whether the fine was reduced and whether the reduction took place on the recommendation of the Minister for Lands and Fisheries; (d) whether the District Justice who heard the case recommended a reduction; (e) and what was the recommendation of the Board of Conservators in the matter of reduction of the fine.
To ask the Minister for Justice if he will state (a) with what offence under the Fisheries Acts James O'Keeffe, of Querrin, Lisdeen, Co. Clare, was charged on the 5th July, 1932; (b) the result of the trial and whether a fine was imposed; (c) whether the fine was reduced and whether the reduction took place on the recommendation of the Minister for Lands and Fisheries; (d) whether the District Justice who heard the case recommended a reduction; (e) and what was the recommendation of the Board of Conservators in the matter of reduction of the fine.
To ask the Minister for Justice if he will state (a) with what offence under the Fisheries Acts Michael Nolan, bootmaker, of Scariff, Co. Clare, was charged on the 12th July, 1932; (b) the result of the trial and whether a fine was imposed; (c) whether the fine was reduced and whether the reduction took place on the recommendation of the Minister for Lands and Fisheries; (d) whether the District Justice who heard the case recommended a reduction; (e) and what was the recommendation of the Board of Conservators in the matter of reduction of the fine.
Since the Deputy agrees, I shall give the answers to Questions 21 to 31, inclusive, together. They are as follows:—
Joseph Lysaght was convicted at Ennistymon District Court on the 4th May, 1932, for removing from a fresh water river salmon which had been killed by unlawful means and was fined £10 with £2 6s. 6d. costs. On petition the fine was reduced to £3.
The circumstances in the case of John Corrigan are identical with those given in the case of Patrick Dunne.
Timothy Tobin was convicted at Adare District Court on the 14th June last of having fished with drift-net for salmon in the weekly close season and fined £10, which was reduced on petition to £5.
George Burke, Senior, was convicted at Castleconnell District Court on the 8th June last of having angled for salmon without a licence and was fined £4, which was reduced on petition to £1.
Cornelius McInerney was convicted at Tulla (Co. Clare) District Court on 7th July, 1932, of fishing for trout with an implement other than rod and line during the weekly close season. He was convicted and fined £10, which was reduced on petition to £3.
The circumstances in the case of Charles Hinchy are identical with those in the case of Cornelius McInerney.
Patrick Dawson was convicted at Kilmallock District Court on 14th January, 1932, of having used a gaff illegally during the annual close season. He was fined £4, which was reduced on petition to £1.
Edward Dawson was convicted at the same Court of a like offence and also fined £4, which was reduced on petition to £1.
Martin Cunneen was convicted at the Tulla District Court on 7th July, 1932, of fishing for trout with an implement other than rod and line during the weekly close season. He was fined £10, which was reduced on petition to £1.
James O'Keeffe was convicted at Kilkee District Court on 5th July, 1932, of using a net for taking salmon within the prohibited area adjoining the mouth of a river, and also of using a net without a certificate under the Salmon Fishery Act, 1863. Fines amounting to £3 10s. 0d. were imposed which were reduced on petition to £1 15s. 0d.
Michael Nolan was convicted at Tomgraney District Court on the 12th July last of using an illegal instrument in fishing on a lake. He was fined £4, which was reduced on petition to £1.
Mr. Lynch
Will the Minister say whether in view of the intention of the Government to condone breaches of the fishery laws, an instruction should not be issued to the Boards of Conservators to cease expending money on the employment of water bailiffs for the protection of our inland fisheries?
The proportion of petitions that have been favourably dealt with by the reduction of fines imposed in fishing cases in the period from March last to date, is substantially the same as in the same period last year, though, having regard to the great distress that prevails and the difficulty of recovering money penalties, one might have expected that there would have been a substantially larger number of reductions in the period stated this year. The number is substantially the same as last year.
Mr. Lynch
I cannot of course question the Minister's statement——
Put down a question.
Mr. Lynch
——but it would be amazing to me if it were so in view of the fact that in the purview of one Board of Conservators you have all these remissions.
The House of course will also have realised from the answers given by me here that the amounts to which the fines have been reduced are still very substantial.
Mr. Lynch
That is exactly what I said, that it amounts to condoning offences.