asked the President whether in view of the declaration of Michael Conway that he is prepared to defend himself and submit rebutting evidence in a civil court he will indicate if the Executive Council will take steps to ensure that the sentence imposed by the Constitution (Special Powers) Tribunal will not be carried into effect and that Conway will be afforded an opportunity of a trial before a judge and jury.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Trial of Michael Conway.
The Executive Council is satisfied that Michael Conway was given a fair trial and that every opportunity was afforded him to submit evidence on his behalf, had he so desired. The Council, accordingly, sees no reason for reopening the case, even if it were legally possible to do so.
Will the President say why he now believes it is right and proper to arraign a man on a capital charge before the Military Tribunal, seeing that in 1931 he was opposed to this tribunal being given any such powers in respect of life or death over a prisoner?
My view in 1931 I think was quite clear from what I stated at the time, that I did not trust the Executive Council of the day with these powers, that I indicated that another line of policy was possible, and the change is due to the fact that that line of policy has been tried; that this Government has tried to make it possible for all sections of the community to be represented freely in the Parliament and without any appeal to force to settle the political differences between them. If the Deputy wants to discuss the matter in its entirety, I suggest that he take it up on the adjournment.
May I suggest to the President that this is the same objectionable Tribunal which was rightly condemned by him and his Party in 1931 and that it has acquired no virtues in the meantime——
The Military Tribunal is a court of law duly constituted by the Oireachtas.
That is the tragedy of it.
Does this particular court consist of any lawyer of experience?
The Deputy understands the constitution of the court as well as I do, and again I suggest that this matter ought not to be dealt with by way of question and answer. If it is to be raised at all, it should be raised in some other manner so that it could be thrashed out.
Can we be told whether any man sitting at this trial had legal qualifications which would entitle him to act as a judge and to sit in judgment on Michael Conway?
I can only repeat that the Deputy understands the constitution of the court. That court has been trying various cases for a considerable time, and any unprejudiced person looking at the conduct of that tribunal in the cases submitted must come to the conclusion that if a person is not guilty of an offence he certainly will get before that tribunal as good a chance of acquitting himself as he will get before any court.
Why is there a distinction in the treatment of these cases? Why was Michael Conway tried by the Military Tribunal while in other cases apparently similar the prisoners were brought before a judge and jury?
That is a separate and a much wider question than the question on the Order Paper.
I am prepared to meet this or any other matter of public interest on the adjournment or at any other time.
We will find an opportunity of raising it later.