asked the Minister for Justice if he will state in how many cases the prerogative of mercy was exercised in each of the years 1925, 1926, 1927, 1928, 1929, 1930 and 1931, respectively.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Exercise of the Prerogative of Mercy.
The figures are as follows:—In 1925, 160 cases; 1926, 83 cases; 1927, 178 cases; 1928, 68 cases; 1929, 78 cases; 1930, 94 cases; 1931, 70 cases.
asked the Minister for Justice if he will state (1) with reference to the 54 prisoners in whose favour (exclusive of the 43 remissions on the occasion of the Eucharistic Congress) the prerogative of mercy was exercised between 1st April, 1932, and 3rd November, 1932, in how many of these cases was the sentence being served imposed for (a) a sexual offence; (b) an offence under the Firearms Act; (c) an offence against the person other than these included under (a) and (b); (d) an offence against property, and (2) in how many other cases under (a), (b), (c) and (d) above, respectively, was the exercise of the prerogative considered.
I would ask the Deputy to repeat the question on this day week.
I take it that the question will be put down in the ordinary way, without having to send it in.
It will take a good deal of time to extract all the information as it has to be checked by the prison records. I hope to have it, if possible, on Wednesday.
Might I ask the Minister to state why he is not in a position to give this information? Is the Minister aware that this or a similar question was asked during the last three weeks? Am I to understand that when the Minister was exercising his prerogative — I do not know if it was the Minister or the Governor-General exercised the prerogative of mercy— he had not all the information that is asked for in the question before him?
The Deputy is quite mistaken in suggesting that this question was asked before.
A similar question.
A similar question was not asked before. I doubt if Deputy Morrissey can have read the question and, if he has, he cannot possibly have grasped what the question imports, the numerous files that have to be gone through and checked in my Department. The staff relating to this matter consists of two men who ordinarily are fully occupied, and this throws a great burden upon them, as well as the previous question which I answered, showing the enormous number of cases in which the late Governor-General exercised the prerogative of mercy since 1925. It threw a great strain on my Department.
Is the Minister aware that he has not answered my question, whether the information asked for in this question is not similar to that asked for by another Deputy about a fortnight ago, and if it was not before the Minister before he exercised the prerogative of mercy? If all the information asked for in this question, and in the question asked by a Deputy a fortnight or three weeks ago, was not before him, how did he exercise the prerogative of mercy?
My intention is to answer Deputy McGilligan's question. The prerogative of mercy in the cases referred to was exercised on my advice. In each case I went into the matter in the greatest detail, and went into it far more than is indicated in the question. Of course, the papers have been put away and filed, some since last March, some since April and some since May. It is now largely a matter of routine, picking out all the information again and classifying it in the way in which Deputy McGilligan desires to have it classified and made available to the House.
Am I to understand that the information was collected and classified and put before the Minister in each and every case before the prerogative of mercy was exercised, and that that information which was classified and put before the Minister is not now available?
Order of business.
I am waiting to ask a supplementary question. Is it not a fact that the details asked for require nothing more than an examination of 54 files which have in recent months been put before the Minister? Is not that so?
They have to be checked with the prison record.
In connection with that may I ask is it possible that the prerogative of mercy was exercised without checking being already done with regard to details asked for?
No, no.
Therefore it has been done.
All the checking was done in each particular case. The different features of the case were inquired into in the order of the Deputy's question. I do not know what Deputies are suggesting. Immediately notice of this question was received the staff of my Department was put on to the work. As I said before, I intend to answer question No. 7 as I answered No. 6. I am afraid Deputy Morrissey is not able to appreciate the amount of office work that was necessary for question No. 6.
It is the second time the Minister has shelved the whole question. Surely when a Deputy puts down a question he would be expected to appreciate the details required. Does the Minister state that getting the details of question No. 7 is an easier task than getting details of a question which last week the Minister refused to answer?
Replies to questions cannot be allowed to develop into a debate. This question will be answered next week.
Might I point out, arising out of the answer, that certain considerations will arise in reference to a question not answered last week, and which may entail it being put down next week.
The Deputy got a full answer to No. 6.
A question has been asked.
Deputies
Chair, Chair.
I will raise it on the adjournment if you like. Are you agreeable?
Please yourself. Do not consult my wishes at all.