asked the Minister for Justice if he is aware that prior to the trial of Messrs. Ryan, Harty and Johnston by the Military Tribunal, the members of the Tribunal were supplied by the Attorney-General with copies of the State counsel's brief; if he is further aware that objection was taken to this brief on the ground that it contained surmises by officers of the Gárda; Síochána and a great number of unsworn statements which were not and could not be put in evidence, and further, to ask the Minister what he proposes to do in the matter.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Conduct of Cases at Military Tribunal.
This matter has been brought to the notice of the Attorney-General and I am informed by him that the answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. The practice settled by the Constitution (Special Powers) Tribunal requires the Attorney-General to serve upon each accused a copy of the statement of charges and a summary of the evidence to be given against him and to lodge with the Registrar of the Tribunal copies of these documents. This practice was followed in the case mentioned by the Deputy. An objection was taken during the hearing of this case to the fact that statements included in the summary of evidence were before the members of the Tribunal. The President of the court overruled this objection and informed counsel that the documents in question were supplied to them by direction of the Tribunal. As the Deputy is doubtless aware, the Tribunal has full and unqualified power, under the statute by which it is constituted, to settle its own procedure.
Does the Minister not consider that it is very unfair to prisoners who are brought before the Tribunal that matters of conjecture, detrimental to the interests of the prisoners, should be supplied by the Attorney-General, or by anyone else, to the Tribunal, and is the Minister not further aware that if depositions taken before District Justices, who know the law of evidence, were allowed before a jury and if the jury were allowed to see them, a conviction by that jury would not stand for five minutes in the Court of Criminal Appeal?
That has been settled; it has been the practice.
Does the Minister not consider that, if that is the practice, the sooner the Attorney-General refuses to supply documents to the Tribunal for the purpose of prejudicing the Tribunal against the prisoners who are being brought before it, the better?
Why did the Deputy lay down that practice?
I did not.
You did lay it down. You gave power to the Tribunal to accept evidence in this way.
No. Evidence before the Tribunal must be on oath, and you are now supplying and, in this particular case, did in fact supply, as I know of my own knowledge, statements to the Tribunal which could not be verified in court.
We supplied to the Tribunal what we supplied to the prisoners.
The Attorney-General
I might say that the practice followed is the same as the practice followed since the Tribunal first started its operations, and I do not see how the Deputy can expect me to decline to obey the ruling of the Tribunal itself. As stated in the answer to the question, the practice is to supply to each accused person a statement of the charges and a summary of evidence. Every effort possible is made to exclude from the summary of evidence anything which will not be admissible as evidence. It may have happened in some cases that something did creep into these summaries which perhaps it might have been wiser not to have allowed in, but I can assure the Deputy that every effort will be made to exclude such things. I cannot, however, refuse to file with the Registrar a copy of the charges and a summary of evidence.
But surely here is a particular case in which I have put a question and in respect of which the Attorney-General and the Minister for Justice can verify my statement, if they like, by seeing the documents, as I have seen them. The same documents were supplied to the defence and they were absolutely teeming with statements which no attempt was made to prove and with guess-work and surmise by police officers detrimental to the prisoners. I would ask the Minister, having regard to that fact and having regard also to the fact that the Military Tribunal in the finding they came to, which was not justified by the evidence, must have been prejudiced by these statements, will he not consider the question of releasing the men who were tried in this fashion, which I say was against justice?
The Deputy should not have alleged that the Military Tribunal came to a decision which was not justified, as neither the Tribunal nor any other duly constituted court can have its decisions subjected to revision or discussion in this House, this House not being a judicial body, and having in fact no judicial functions.
Is the Deputy withdrawing the statement?
If it is not open to me, according to the rules of the House, to comment on the finding of the Tribunal, I naturally obey your ruling, Sir, but I now ask the Minister that, considering that these men did not get a fair trial, owing to the fact that matter was supplied to them which could not be put in evidence, will he not consider the question of releasing the men in the interests of the administration of justice who were found guilty by the Tribunal? Will the Minister not answer that question?
The Deputy has alleged that these men did not get a fair trial.
I adhere to that— that the men did not get a fair trial because the Attorney-General supplied to the Tribunal statements of fact which could not be verified in evidence and a whole lot of guess-work by police officers and not a summary of evidence.
The Deputy suggested in his question that the Attorney-General handed his brief to them.
Exactly, the same brief as was handed to the State Counsel. It was paged exactly the same.
The Attorney-General
I resent this suggestion that the brief in the hands of Counsel appearing for me was handed to the Tribunal. I have just stated what is the fact, that the document which was served on the accused —the statement of charges and summary of evidence—was all that was before the Tribunal.
There was much more than a summary of evidence. Again and again, the Tribunal referred, when reading from it, to particular evidence and the paging was exactly the same as that in the brief supplied to the State Counsel and therefore, it must have been the same document.
Why did you not put up that defence in court?
It was put up and very strongly commented on.
Dr. Ryan
The Tribunal did not believe it.
It was strongly commented on because it was a shocking procedure.