There are a couple of points arising out of the administration of the Department of Justice to which I would like to direct the attention of the acting Minister. Deputy McGilligan has drawn attention to two matters of the greatest public importance, in my view, matters that I think deserve the attention of the Government. The first one was the question of the taking of statements by the police from accused persons. We have, in the system created under Article 2A of the Constitution, power given to the police in reference to cases that come within the provisions of Article 2A to cross-examine accused persons or persons whom they suspect of having committed crimes within the provisions of Article 2A, and if the person interrogated refuses to answer, he commits a crime. I would like to get from the Minister an assurance that, in reference to the investigation of what we may call, for want of a better word, ordinary crime as distinct from crime coming within the ambit or the scope of the provisions of Article 2A, those provisions of Article 2A will not be put into operation, directly or indirectly.
For very special reasons peculiar to the class of offences that were caught within the ambit of Article 2A, power was given to the police to interrogate accused persons in a way not recognised by the law as it existed prior to the introduction of that Article. We have insisted that those provisions were for peculiar circumstances and peculiar cases, and I think it would tend very much to the betterment of the administration of the law, and also tend very much to the greater respect that would be given by the ordinary public to the administration of the law in this country, that we should, as far as possible, keep to the strict, the rigid rules which have been in force for so long and which have, in cases other than those coming under Article 2A, been in operation since the establishment of the State.
I fully realise the difficulties of the police and the anxiety of the Government to get after ordinary crime. It is difficult enough for the police, in the conduct of their ordinary affairs, conducting the investigation of crime, to get the necessary evidence to persuade a jury of the guilt of an accused person. It has been accepted as an axiom of criminal administration that it is better for some of the guilty persons to get away rather than that abuses should creep into the administration of the law. I do not want to go into any of these cases that have come up within the last 12 months, where statements have been taken by the police. I content myself with asking the Attorney-General and the acting Minister for Justice that, as far as possible, it will be insisted upon by the Government that the police, in their investigation of ordinary crimes, shall adhere strictly to what were known in the old days as the judges' rules, and that in the interest of innocent persons people accused or suspected of crime by the police shall not be subjected to anything even approaching third degree. These rules, known as the judges' rules, are really for the benefit of accused persons. When people are charged with the administration of the law, or the conduct of Government, whether they are in responsible or subordinate positions, the natural tendency is to do everything to win their case, to do their job properly. It should be impressed upon those people that it is much more important for the ultimate respect that will be given to the law that criminals should be prosecuted and convicted with the utmost adherence to the rigid principles that we have been accustomed to under what were known as the judges' rules before the introduction of the provisions contained in Article 2A of the Constitution.
Arising out of statements made to police officers in the course of investigating crimes or alleged crimes, there is one matter to which I would like to draw the Minister's attention. It is a matter, not of the very greatest importance, but it is of considerable importance to the practitioners in the courts. When accidents occur through the collision of motor cars, or when people are run down by motor cars, it is the practice of the police to take statements from the persons involved in the collisions immediately after those collisions. Of course, these statements are for police purposes, usually with a view to seeing whether or not it is necessary in the public interest that either party or both of the parties involved in the accident should be prosecuted under the provisions of the Traffic Act. The net result is that the policeman on the scene takes measurements and statements. If civil proceedings result from the collision, we are faced, in the course of practice in these matters, with the question of what is in the statements made by persons immediately after an accident. The practice of the Gárda authorities so far has been to direct the Gárdaí who are responsible for the taking of the statements not to allow either party to the civil proceedings to have any view of the statements in question. They are instructed that if they are sub poenaed in the ordinary way to appear in court then, subject to and only on the order of the judge, will they produce these statements.
I think the Attorney-General will tell the acting Minister that the position as regards these statements is, and it has been so ruled by our judges, that they are irrelevant in civil proceedings; they are not evidence in the ordinary way, and cannot be given as evidence by the police officer who took the statements. The way the matter has impressed itself on me is this: that they are, and have been, ruled to be capable of providing material for cross-examination in the event of a witness in the civil proceedings on his oath giving a different statement from that he gave to the police officer immediately after the accident. If there is a controversy as to whether or not a particular thing occurred, the statement that a man makes immediately after an accident is much stronger than the statement he will make six or nine months afterwards when he comes in a civil action before a jury. The practitioner in these cases has no material from which to find out whether or not a statement made by a party to the suit, or a witness in favour of either party, is in conflict with, or in accordance with, the statement made immediately after the accident to the police officer. As it is, the statement is produced only on an order of the court, and the court will not order a police officer to produce it because it is not relevant unless one of the counsel engaged is able to indicate that the reason he wants the statement is to cross-examine the witness on the statement he makes in court as being in contradistinction to, and a contradiction of, the statement made to the police.
In the interests of truth and justice, there ought to be a regulation made by the Gárda that either party to the civil proceedings in which these matters may become relevant should be allowed, or their legal representatives should be allowed, to view the statements before the case comes on, without an order of the court. It is a matter that has given some concern to practitioners in these civil cases. It is perfectly useless bringing down the Guards to the civil tribunals, wasting their time and wasting a certain amount of the money of litigants, to produce these statements when they will not be produced except on an order of the court, and the court will not give such an order except for the purposes of cross-examination on the lines that I have already indicated. I do not press this from the point of view of serving the interests of private litigants, but I do press it from the point of view of preventing people from changing their story either in their own interests or in the interests of some person on whose behalf they are giving evidence.
Deputy McGilligan stated that the volume of criminal work has not decreased. That is a point that has struck me personally in recent years, and in what I have to say on it I do not confine myself to this particular year. I would like the Minister to give us some statement of the general position in the country in relation to what I shall call, for want of a better term, ordinary crime, leaving aside the crime dealt with by the Military Tribunal. It appears to me that in Green Street some criminal tribunal is sitting continuously, practically without the lapse of one single day from year's end to year's end, subject only to the vacation periods. I would like to know if the Minister could tell us what is the cause of that. I hesitate to think that, since the establishment of our State, the criminal has got busier and better. In the days before the Great War, and for some years after it, there was an occasional commission and an occasional assize, and sometimes the Recorder of Dublin had a criminal sessions. The impression left on my mind at all events is that, compared with those times, there is an increase of about 1,000 per cent. in the criminal work in this country. It may be that the police are more active—I think not—but all sorts and varieties of crime are being tried in Green Street by the circuit judges, and by the judges in the Central Criminal Court.
The fact is that, throughout the year, some judge is sitting dealing with criminal work, and it would certainly not merely appease my curiosity, but even perhaps ease my mind from the point of view of social order in this country, if the Minister could give us some indication as to the volume of criminal work during last year as compared with previous years, and the reason why there is such a volume of criminal work in the courts in Dublin. Perhaps he would also, if possible, give me some information as to whether or not there has been an increase in the number of cases that have been transferred from the country to the city. There has been a fair amount of grumbling amongst jurors in the city and county of Dublin as to the excessive amount of duty that they are called upon to do in connection with the administration of justice. The volume of civil work in which jurors are compelled to serve is not so large, but, notwithstanding that, a fair amount of the time of private citizens is taken up in connection with ordinary civil actions of tort, negligence, and so on. On top of that, there is throughout the whole year a jury panel being called, and jurors have to sit investigating criminal cases in Green Street. Naturally, that work is greatly disliked. It is work of a very thankless nature, involving very often sordid surroundings and sordid considerations. It is work involving a considerable amount of public duty and the exercise of a considerable amount of tact and patience; but, above all, it calls for a considerable amount of time and a lot of money on the part of ordinary citizens. I think we are entitled to know why jurors are called upon continuously to sit in Green Street from one year's end to the other. Is it that crime has so greatly increased in its extent and variety in this State that there exists the necessity for the criminal courts to sit continuously, or is the reason that so many cases are being brought from the country to Dublin? What is the explanation of the phenomenon to which I have just referred?
If there are large numbers of cases being transferred from the country to the City of Dublin for hearing in Green Street, I would like to know what the reason for such transfer is. I have no information as to whether or not there is such an amount of cases being transferred. I do recollect from my own experience, during the time that I was charged with the thankless job of conducting prosecutions in this country, that I was pressed again and again by police officers, in the country in particular, to transfer cases from the country to the city. The jurors of the city and county of Dublin were supposed to be experienced jurors, and were supposed to have, apparently, much more courage than the country jurors. I would like to know from the Minister for Justice whether or not country jurors are doing their ordinary job on juries with the same courage and the same self-sacrifice that the jurors in the city and county of Dublin are doing it. I think it would be grossly unfair to put all the responsibility for convicting criminals on the jurors of the city and county of Dublin. I think it is a bad policy to transfer cases from the country to the city. I would prefer to let the local criminals loose on the local people if they will not convict them in their own local venue. I have always taken the view that the only way to bring home to people that they cannot have criminals and at the same time bring in verdicts of "not guilty" in obvious cases where they were guilty. is to let them have the criminals back at their own firesides. So far as it lay in my hands, my policy always was to leave the local people with their local criminals either in jail locally or else at home locally. I think it is not right or proper that the jurors of the city and county of Dublin should be called upon to do work that the country jurors are afraid to do, and I think that at some time or another —perhaps at no far distant date—the city and county of Dublin jurors will rise and go on strike against the amount of duty that they are called upon to do. Perhaps the Minister may be able to give us some information on that matter.
Deputy McGilligan referred to the training of the police. I had a note to ask the Minister in reference to that matter. It may be due to the pernicious habit I have of reading detective novels that I am interested in a variety of matters in which the police require to be trained. I gather that in Scotland Yard they have very expert methods for training their recruits and their officers in expert detective requirements. Now, I think that nobody ought to be put out on the public or before a jury— because juries will rely on the evidence given by the State and on the assistance that they get from State witnesses —as an expert unless he is really an expert, because in a very short time that expert testimony will be discredited. If one particular expert put forward by the State happens to be discredited in one case, that has its reactions on all other expert testimony that is put forward, and will eventually react very unfavourably on the administration of the criminal law, depending as it does on expert testimony. I think that there ought to be very considerable expenditure in connection with the training of detective officers.
I have an open mind as to whether or not the system, which operates at the moment in the Guards, of promotion from the ranks to the rank of inspector or superintendent is the proper or the best system. I do not know whether the Minister still considers that is the ideal system or whether he would think it more proper that some sort of dilution of the material available should be practised and people brought in with, perhaps, more training and more educational facilities than the ordinary Gárda has. It is a matter upon which I have an open mind, but which is of vital concern. Whether that system of promotion is adopted or not, I think, with Deputy McGilligan, that there ought to be very close consideration given to this question of the proper training of an expert staff in the detective branch. I know that the Minister will defend the administration of his Department from the point of view of the training that they get— every Minister does that—but that will carry no conviction. I am not making it a political point, but I want to know really, as a fact, whether or not the system that exists at present is regarded as the proper one; whether the Minister for Justice is satisfied that he is getting sufficient supplies to enable him to carry on a proper training department; or whether that particular department is being starved by the parsimonious outlook, usual in these matters, of the Department of Finance.
There are one or two other points I wish to mention on this Vote. I should like to know whether or not the Department has had any advertence to the necessity that has existed for some considerable time to reform the law in a variety of directions. I know that I am not at liberty, on the Vote, to speak on legislation to be promoted by the Department, but I do think that in the Department of Justice there ought to be some branch or officers or some machinery of some kind, either voluntary or otherwise, to examine into the points that require bringing up to date. I propose, in the course of a day or two, to put questions on some of these matters that I personally think require reform. We are a long way behind our neighbours across the water in connection with the reform of the ordinary civil law here. There are still enshrined in our law many archaic principles dating from the very earliest growth of English law. The Department ought to look into these matters and see if they can devise any machinery for their consideration, but making it an absolute condition precedent that anybody who gives the Minister advice in reference to law reform should get a certificate from somebody that he is not a crank, because the question of law reform is one that will lend itself to the depredations of the crank more than any other aspect of administration.
I should like to know whether the Department has yet dealt with the vexed question of the parking of cars. The newspapers are splashing the dicta of district justices on the subject of the parking of cars. I do not care what any district justice thinks about the parking of cars. All I want to know, as a motorist, is what I am entitled to do with my car if I come down town. I see "You may park your car here" written up in various places. I see cars parked somewhere else where there is not any such notice. Then perhaps I go to a place which is also full of cars and where there is no notice. In the first two places you are let pass by the police; in the third you are not. The net result, as far as I can see, is that any ordinary motorist, even used to the conditions that exist in the city, has no particular notion of what is and what is not permitted within the law in reference to the parking of cars.
The last point is that I want some information from the Minister as to how he is administering the Citizenship Act. We had recently a very interesting list of names of people desiring to become citizens of Saorstát Eireann. Their names, to put it mildly, were suggestive. I want to know how these applications were dealt with; how many new Irish patriots we have got in the last 12 months; how many we are going to get in the future; and what is the policy of the Department in reference to aliens in general.