asked the Minister for Justice if he will state (a) if he is aware that Thomas Mitchell was arrested in Dublin during the last general election for personation; that he was sentenced to imprisonment and fined in the District Court for this offence; that he appealed to the Circuit Judge, who re-heard the case and affirmed the order of imprisonment and fine; that he appealed further to two High Court Judges; (b) if the term of imprisonment so affirmed has been served; (c) if not, by whom and by virtue of what authority has any remission been made; (d) by whom was the remission signed; (e) the grounds of such remission; (f) if any report upon the case was sought from either the District Justice, the Circuit Judge, or the High Court Judges concerned, and if such report was sought prior to the remission or after it; (g) if so, what was the nature of the report.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Dublin Personation Charge.
The reply to part (a) is in the affirmative. As regards part (d) the remission was signed by the officer of the Department of Justice, to whom this branch of work was at the time assigned. As regards the other parts of the question, the portion of the penalty which consisted of imprisonment for the period of two months was reduced to 14 days, which term was duly served. The remission was made in the usual way in the exercise of the prerogative of mercy. The Justice of the District Court who heard the case was consulted before the remission was made. It is not the practice, as has been said on several previous occasions, to disclose the nature of the advice tendered by the Justice or the grounds on which remission was granted. I may say, however, that the sentence of two months' imprisonment is the minimum sentence allowed by the statute in these cases, and it cannot, therefore, be taken as necessarily representing the punishment which would in the Justice's view have been proper, in all the circumstances of the case, if he had been allowed a discretion.
The sentence of two months' imprisonment represented what the Legislature, at the time, thought was the minimum punishment necessary when an offence of this type was proved. Is not that so? Would the Minister answer the other part of the question: whether any reference was made to the Circuit Court Judge who heard this case in all its details and who was a higher authority than the District Justice?
Of course, there is no obligation, as the Deputy knows, on the Department of Justice to consult either the District Justice or the Circuit Court Judge, but the case was fully heard in the first instance by the District Justice and a report was obtained from him as to the whole circumstances of the case.
I am aware that there is no necessity to appeal to either judge, but I am querying why the appeal was made to the justice of the lower court instead of to the justice of the higher court who had all the facts before him, and who heard the case on facts as well as on law.
Is not disqualification at future elections the most appropriate penalty for personation, and ought it not be the policy of the Government to encourage that particular penalty?
That is an irrelevant Supplementary Question.