Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 6 Jun 1939

Vol. 76 No. 5

Offences Against the State Bill, 1939—From the Seanad.

The Dáil went into Committee to consider amendments from the Seanad.

I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 1:—

Section 2. In page 4, line 12, the word "rightful" deleted and the word "lawful" substituted therefor.

This is merely a verbal amendment. The word "lawful" is perhaps more precise than the word "rightful." When the Bill was before the Dáil an amendment in line 4 was inserted substituting the word "lawful" for the word "rightful".

Is this going back to the original? How is it merely verbal, if we thought it well to change it?

It does not mean anything more than substituting the word "lawful" for "rightful".

I think the Minister will remember that when the Bill was going through the Dáil a case was made for the word "rightful", and he met it. There was a certain amount of importance attached to it at the time, namely that the word "rightful" had a subtle justification, that is as to whether a thing was proper or not, whereas "lawful" meant whatever the law allowed. I think the Minister was struck with the case at the time. Perhaps he will indicate why he goes back on it?

We did substitute it where it was suggested, but we overlooked substituting it in subsequent lines. That would seem as if it were contradictory.

Question put and agreed to.

I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 2.

New section. In page 6, before Section 11, a new section inserted as follows:—

11.—(1) Whenever the Minister for Justice is of opinion, in respect of a newspaper or other periodical publication ordinarily printed outside the State, that a particular issue of such publication either is seditious or contains any matter the publication of which is a contravention of this Act, the said Minister may by order, if he considers that it is in the public interest so to do, do either or both of the following things, that is to say:—

(a) authorise members of the Gárda Síochána to seize and destroy all copies of the said issue of such publication wherever they may be found;

(b) prohibit the importation of any copy of any issue of such publication published within a specified period (not exceeding three months) after the publication of the said issue of such publication.

(2) The Minister for Justice may by order, whenever he thinks proper so to do, revoke or amend any order made by him under the foregoing sub-section of this section or any order (made by him under this sub-section) amending any such order.

(3) It shall not be lawful for any person to import any copy of an issue of a periodical publication the importation of which is prohibited by an order under this section, and all such copies shall be deemed to be included amongst the goods enumerated and described in the Table of Prohibitions and Restrictions Inwards annexed to Section 42 of the Customs Consolidation Act, 1876, and the provisions of that Act (as amended or extended by subsequent Acts) relating to the importation of prohibited or restricted goods shall apply accordingly.

This amendment is necessitated by the fact that in the case of certain newspapers circulating in this country the printers and publishers are outside the jurisdiction of the State. As the Bill stood, if you wanted to prosecute a newspaper which infringed the provisions of the Bill the only way you could proceed was by prosecuting the distributor. It is felt that it would be a great hardship on a reputable distributor that he should be held liable, while the newspaper could get off. A reputable distributor is not expected, or should not be expected I think, to act as a sort of censor over all the publications that came before him. We gave this matter a good deal of consideration. It was represented by newspapers here that they were put in a very unfair position as compared with newspapers outside, particularly newspapers which produced special Irish editions—that they could offend, and perhaps get away with it, whereas newspapers here were liable to pretty severe penalties. The only way we have been able to meet that is by this amendment, giving discretion to prohibit certain newspapers which offend against the provisions of the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 3:

Section 11. In page 7, at the end of the section a new sub-section added as follows:—

(5) Where the proprietor or the editor or other chief officer of a newspaper or other periodical publication receives a document which appears to him to be a treasonable document, a seditious document, or an incriminating document and such document is not published in such newspaper or periodical publication, the following provisions shall have effect, that is to say:—

(a) if such proprietor, editor, or chief officer is requested by a member of the Gárda Síochána to deliver up such document to such member, such proprietor, editor, or chief officer may, in lieu of so delivering up such document, destroy such document and every (if any) copy thereof in his possession in the presence and to the satisfaction of such member;

(b) if such proprietor, editor, or chief officer destroys under the next preceding paragraph of this sub-section such document and every (if any) copy thereof in his possession or of his own motion destroys such document within 24 hours after receiving it and without having made any copy of it or permitted any such copy to be made, such destruction shall be a good defence to any charge against such proprietor, editor, or chief officer of an offence under any sub-section of this section in respect of such document and no civil or criminal action or other proceeding shall lie against such proprietor, editor, or chief officer on account of such destruction.

This amendment was put forward at the request of the Dublin newspapers. It is intended to cover the case of a newspaper which innocently receives a treasonable document. The newspapers feel that they would have to observe a certain amount of secrecy, and they do not want to give away their correspondent. If they destroy the seditious document in the presence of a Guard that is a good defence in any prosecution that might be brought against them.

Question put and agreed to.

I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 4:

New section. In page 7, before Section 12, a new section inserted as follows:—

12.—(1) Every person who shall print for reward any document shall do every of the following things, that is to say:—

(a) at the time of or within 24 hours after printing such document, print or write on at least one copy of such document the name and address of the person for whom or on whose instructions such document was printed;

(b) retain, for six months from the date on which such document was printed, a copy of such document on which the said name and address is printed or written as aforesaid;

(c) on the request of a member of the Gárda Síochána at any time during the said period of six months, produce for the inspection of such member the said copy of such document so retained as aforesaid.

(2) Every person who shall print for reward any document and shall fail to comply in any respect with the foregoing sub-section of this section shall be guilty of an offence under this section and shall be liable on summary conviction thereof, in the case of a first such offence, to a fine not exceeding twenty-five pounds and, in the case of a second or any subsequent such offence, to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds.

(3) This section does not apply to any newspaper, magazine or other periodical publication which is printed by the proprietor thereof on his own premises.

The object of this amendment is to require printers to keep for a reasonable time a copy of any document printed by them; also to keep particulars of the person for whom the work was done. That is the law at present in England and I am informed by the newspapers that that is the practice here. This is only bringing the law into line with the practice.

Supposing the proprietor does there, in connection with the document, what is envisaged in the previous amendment? Supposing he finds that a certain document which was handed in has actually been printed, would it be sufficient if he destroyed the original and the copies of it?

I suppose that would be a good defence.

Not under the section as it stands, once he got it printed. It might have been printed in the ordinary course of business and the attention of some person in authority might be drawn to it. I should say that if he does what the previous amendment covers, namely, destroys it, that is really all you want. It might get into print without any mala fides on his part and he may not want to give away his correspondent. What is the force of sub-section (3)?

It was put forward, I think, by some of the newspaper representatives that a special exception should be made for newspapers where they print on their own premises. I do not know very much about the force of it myself.

If the destruction would be sufficient they ought to be empowered to destroy all copies. However, I do not want to hold up the Bill on account of that.

Question put and agreed to.

I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 5:—

New section. In page 7, before Section 12, a new section inserted as follows:—

12.—(1) Every person who shall print for reward any document (other than a document to which this section does not apply) which he knows or has reason to believe is intended to be sold or distributed (whether to the public generally or to a restricted class or number of persons) or to be publicly or privately displayed shall, if such document consists only of one page or sheet printed on one side only, print his name and the address of his place of business on the front of such document and shall, in every other case, print the said name and address on the first or the last page of such document.

(2) Every person who shall contravene by act or omission the foregoing sub-section of this section shall be guilty of an offence under this section and shall be liable on summary conviction thereof, in the case of a first such offence, to a fine not exceeding twenty-five pounds and, in the case of a second or any subsequent such offence, to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds.

(3) This section does not apply to any of the following documents, that is to say:—

(a) currency notes, bank notes, bills of exchange, promissory notes, cheques, receipts and other financial or commercial documents,

(b) writs, orders, summonses, warrants, affidavits and other documents for the purposes of or for use in any lawful court or tribunal,

(c) any document printed by order of the Government, either House of the Oireachtas, a Minister of State, or any officer of the State in the execution of his duties as such officer,

(d) Any document which the Minister for Justice shall by order declare to be a document to which this section does not apply.

This amendment is also consequent on the deletion of Section 12. It requires printers to print their names and addresses on documents printed by them. Again I am informed that this is the English law at present, and is also the practice here. Deputies will remember that when the Bill was before the House there was some criticism as to what regulations might be made under this Bill. What I am now doing is deleting Section 12, which empowers the Minister to make regulations, and substituting amendments by which the regulations will be incorporated in the Bill itself.

Question put and agreed to.

I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 6:—

Section 12. In page 7, Section 12, lines 20 to 47 inclusive, deleted.

That amendment deletes Section 12.

Question put and agreed to.

I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 7:—

Section 13. In pages 7 and 8, sub-section (2), all words from the word "any" on page 7, line 58, to the word "unincorporate" on page 8, line 2, deleted and the words "the members of any organisation" substituted therefor.

That is merely a verbal amendment. The word "organisation" is defined in Section 2.

Question put and agreed to.

I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 8:

Section 15. In page 9, sub-section (1), paragraph (b), line 5, the words "association, or other body" deleted.

That is the same point.

Question put and agreed to.

I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 9:

Section 19. In page 11, before sub-section (3), a new sub-section inserted as follows:—

(3) It shall be a good defence for a person charged with the offence under this section of being a member of an unlawful organisation, to show—

(a) that he did not know that such organisation was an unlawful organisation, or

(b) that, as soon as reasonably possible after he became aware of the real nature of such organisation or after the making of a suppression order in relation to such organisation, he ceased to be a member thereof and dissociated himself therefrom.

It was put forward in the Seanad that a person might not be aware that the organisation to which he belonged was an illegal organisation. We have tried to meet that point by providing the defences set out here.

On whom is the onus in that case?

Mr. Brennan

On the innocent man.

The Minister for Industry and Commerce found it difficult to accept amendments of that kind in connection with hotel proprietors.

Question put and agreed to.

I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 10:

Section 28. In sub-section (1), page 16, line 21, and also in sub-section (2), page 16, line 33, after the word "síochána" the words and brackets "(if he is not in uniform on production of his identification card if demanded)" inserted.

This was also an amendment put forward in the Seanad and I propose to ask the House to accept it. It deals with what is known as bogus police and provides that if the person who goes in is not in uniform, and there is any doubt as to whether he is a policeman, he should produce his identification card showing that he is a policeman.

Question put and agreed to.
Amendments reported and agreed to.
Ordered: That the Seanad be notified accordingly.
Top
Share