asked the Minister for Justice if he will state whether he is aware that when charging a number of persons in the District Court at Carrick-on-Shannon on Saturday, the 19th May, with offences committed on the night of the 28-29th April when, during disturbances in the town of Mohill, an attempt was made forcibly to take possession of the Gárda barracks, a shot was fired and a platform intended for use at a public meeting of the Fine Gael Party was maliciously burned, the State Solicitor withdrew a charge against the defendants of conspiracy, and of aiding and abetting one of their number to have in his possession a revolver, and a charge against this latter defendant of having in his possession a revolver with intent to endanger life, upon the defendants agreeing to be tried by the District Justice; and if he will state what was the reason for desiring this case to be tried by the District Justice; on whose authority were these charges withdrawn; and what were the reasons for their withdrawal and what statutory authority exists permitting the non-prosecution of serious charges of this kind.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Mohill Disturbances.
I propose to take Question No. 11 before No. 10. I am informed by the Attorney-General that the facts in this case are as follows:—
The substantial charge against the accused was that of unlawful assembly. Under Section 77 of the Courts of Justice Act, 1924, there is jurisdiction to try persons charged with this offence in the District Court, if the accused consents but not otherwise. The State Solicitor, taking into account all the circumstances of the case, considered it proper to avail of the section of the courts of Justice Act in order to have the charges disposed of in the District Court. The consent of the accused having been given, the State solicitor withdrew the other charges against the accused. It is always open to the prosecution to elect what charges are to be proceeded with.
Will the Minister say how soon he can hope to control a disorderly situation when a case, in which a group of men attempt to take a police barracks, and would have taken it, according to the Superintendent of the police, except for the police action, and when they carried firearms and destroyed a platform intended for a public meeting, is considered a suitable case in which to withdraw serious charges in order that the District Court may deal with it? How does the Minister intend to deal with the growing state of disorder among his followers in the country if that line is pursued?
As the Deputy knows, all these men were dealt with on the charge of unlawful assembly which was, as I stated, the substantial charge in that case. All these matters are taken into consideration when being dealt with on the charge of unlawful assembly.
asked the Minister for Justice if he will state whether he is aware that when an income tax collector was being charged at Carrick-on-Shannon on the 1st June with conspiracy, unlawful assembly and aiding and abetting another while in possession of a revolver, on the night of the 28th-29th April, when a platform intended for a Fine Gael meeting in Mohill was burned and an attempt made forcibly to take possession of the Gárda Síochána barracks, the State solicitor stated in the District Court that his instructions were that if the defendant consented to be tried by the District Court some of the charges would be withdrawn; and if he will state on whose authority the State solicitor made this statement, whose desire was it that the defendant should consent to be tried by the District Court; what were the reasons for this desire, and if he will state the statutory authority for the non-prosecution of serious charges of this kind.
I am informed by the Attorney-General that the facts in this case are as follows: The accused in this case was charged with offences which arose out of the incidents of the 28th-29th April. He did not come before the court until after other charges which arose out of the same incidents and which were the subject of the question I have just answered were disposed of. There would appear to be no ground for making a distinction between his case and the other cases. Accordingly he was asked if he would consent to be tried for unlawful assembly by the District Justice. He declined to consent and was returned for trial.