asked the Minister for Justice if he is aware that Mr. Fergus Power, solicitor, Waterford, reporting secretary of the League of Youth, and Mr. Rody Hanley of Tramore were approached by detectives in the street in Waterford on Saturday evening, the 5th May, and subjected to a personal search; and if he will state what was the reason for this action of the police and what is the statutory authority for such action.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Waterford Incidents.
asked the Minister for Justice if he is aware that on Saturday night, the 5th May, a number of Gárda Síochána and detectives visited the League of Youth Club in Waterford, and subjected all present to a personal search; and if he will state for what reason this action was taken by the police, and under what statutory authority.
I propose to take questions Nos. 2 and 3 together. The answer to the first part of the question in each case is in the affirmative.
The searches were made following the receipt by the police of information that firearms were being kept in the club or carried by individual members without the necessary licences. The statutory authority for such searches will be found in Act No. 17 of 1925 and Act No. 37 of 1931.
Does the Minister realise now that there was no foundation for the making of such reports to the police?
I do not realise anything of the kind. Recent events have shown that arms have been found with other members of that organisation.
Does the Minister admit that searches were carried out in these two instances on information that had absolutely no foundation?
May I ask the Minister whether it is not necessary before searches of this nature can be made that the Guards making the search should have reasonable grounds for believing that an offence of this nature had been committed? What grounds had the Guards for believing that an offence had been committed before they made the search?
The Deputy can take it that the Guards had reasonable grounds for making the searches.
I decline to take it that they had any grounds. I should like to know what the grounds were that the Minister states they had?
You can take it or not as you please.
I can take it that there were no grounds. Is that what the Minister means?
My statement does not mean anything of the kind.
I should like further to ask the Minister concerning his statement that arms have been found with other members of that organisation if we are to conclude from that that all members of this organisation are to be searched for arms and is he going to apply that same reasoning to other organisations, members of which have been found with arms?
The Deputy is not entitled to conclude that because certain members of an organisation are found with arms that other members of the organisation can be suspected of having arms.
Then why did the Minister make the reply he made that recent events had shown that arms had been found with other members of that organisation?
Will the Minister say that this search was made after attacks had been made upon the League of Youth in Waterford? And will the Minister say if he is aware whether these attacks, had been made on the League of Youth with a view to having subsequent searches made on them by the Guards to see if they were carrying arms? Will the Minister also say if the searches were made for arms why was it that documents in Mr. Power's pocket were also examined?
The search was made on information. The Deputy can take it that any person or parties suspected of having arms or seditious documents and about which information is conveyed to the Guards will be searched.
But the Minister now sees that there was nothing in that information?
Why was there a search for documents if it was only a question of searching for arms which they were supposed to have?
A search was made to find out if they had seditious documents.
Was the search a search for arms or for seditious documents?
Both.
Under what authority are the searches made?
The searches were made on suspicion.
Under what statutory authority?
Under No. 17 of 1925 and 37 of 1931.
Must not the Guard first observe and then suspect under those statutes?
He must have reasonable ground for suspicion.
But the Minister has already said that it was on information received. Was the observation subsequent to the information?
That naturally follows.