Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 23 Jul 1946

Vol. 102 No. 9

Supplies and Services (Temporary Provisions) Bill, 1946—From the Seanad.

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

Minister for Finance (Mr. Aiken)

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

Section 3: In sub-section (2), page 4, line 25, after the word "order" the following "(except the Emergency Powers (No. 178) Order, 1942 (S. R. & O., No. 174 of 1942) )" inserted.

Amendments Nos. 1 and 2 from the Seanad are designed to secure that after the 1st September action may be taken against an offender up to 12 months but not longer than 12 months. Under the 1939 Act there was no limit to the time for bringing summary proceedings. With the amendments to Sections 3 and 6 that have been inserted in the Seanad, after the 1st September, in respect of any offences committed under this Bill, proceedings can be taken for 12 months but not after 12 months.

Mr. Dillon

These would be offences against orders made under the Bill

Mr. Aiken

Yes.

Mr. Dillon

Is there any saving provision in regard to concealment of the offence? Suppose the offence is a surreptitious one?

Mr. MacEntee

All offences are surreptitious.

Mr. Dillon

What helpful observation did the Minister for Local Government and Public Health make? There is a number of statutes of limitation in regard to civil actions and other matters but all of them are subject to the overriding proviso that the statute of limitation only begins to run after the matter in respect of which it is running has come to light. Suppose somebody succeeds in effectively breaking a black market regulation or something of that kind and the knowledge of the transaction does not come to the Minister or to anybody else in authority for nine months after it has been perpetrated, does the limitation envisaged here run from the alleged date of the offence or from the date on which the Minister first became apprised of the commission of the offence? I think that is a very material consideration.

Mr. Aiken

These amendments leave untouched proceedings which may be taken where offences were committed against Orders or against the 1939 Act. There may have been offences committed in the past under the 1939 Act or there may be offences committed up to the 1st September under the Emergency Powers Act, and there will be no limit to the time in which summary proceedings may be instituted.

Mr. McGilligan

They can be prosecuted in 1960?

Mr. Aiken

They can, according to the law, but I understand the Seanad were anxious that that should not go on, that similar power should not be given to the Government or to the Attorney-General or to the Guards in respect of offences against this 1946 Supplies and Services Bill.

Mr. Dillon

Neither the Minister for Finance nor myself professes to be an expert on the criminal law, but does not the Minister see that it is rather a strange principle to lay down that if somebody commits a very serious offence but succeeds in keeping it secret for 12 months——

Mr. Aiken

This is a summary offence.

Mr. Dillon

—— possibly a black market transaction, for which, the Minister will remember, very heavy penalties have been imposed in aggravated cases, he will be exempt from prosecution? Take, for instance, the negotiation of gold coins, or something of that kind. Suppose a man bought a very large number of gold coins and carefully secreted them for the statutory period of 12 months and then walked down O'Connell Street and bade all comers defiance, the Minister might be in a position to see at once that the man purchased the gold coins but, as he bought on the 1st January, 1947, and it was then 1st February, 1948, under this proviso, he is powerless. It seems to me that such an exemption from prosecution should run from the date that the Minister gets knowledge of the crime.

Mr. McGilligan

That is not the amendment.

Mr. Dillon

Does the Minister see no danger in that?

Mr. McGilligan

The amendment says, "from the date of the offence."

Mr. Aiken

If it is an indictable offence, I suppose proceedings can be taken at any time, but where the offence is to be proceeded against by summary proceedings, if the old law, the Petty Sessions (Ireland) Act, 1851, were to apply, the proceedings could not be taken after six months.

Mr. McGilligan

From the date of the offence.

Mr. Aiken

From the date of the offence. This extends the time to 12 months from the date of the offence. In respect of anything that has happened in the past against the 1939 Act, or that may happen up to 1st September, there is no limit of either six or 12 months.

Mr. Cosgrave

Under the Emergency Powers Orders dealing with offences against the Pigs and Bacon Acts, power was given whereby, if the information came to the Minister after six months, as the period then was, the Minister could, within six months from the date of the receipt of the information, as given under a certificate, empower the Pigs and Bacon Commission to take proceedings. Does that still continue under the Emergency Powers Orders which are continued by this Act?

Mr. Aiken

We are not interfering with the ordinary law.

Mr. Cosgrave

This is not a case of the ordinary law. There is this limiting provision under the ordinary law, but, under the Emergency Powers Orders relating to pigs and bacon, power was given, in the event of the information not coming to light within six months—suppose that, after 12 or 18 months, information came to the Pigs and Bacon Commission—to the Minister for Agriculture to give a certificate to the effect that he had received the information on a certain date, and, within six months from that date, proceedings could be instituted.

Mr. Aiken

Was that under the ordinary law?

Mr. Cosgrave

Under Emergency Powers Orders.

Mr. Aiken

Any offence against an Emergency Powers Order committed since 1939, or committed up to 1st September, can be proceeded against at any time. There is no time limit.

Mr. Cosgrave

The only point is that some of these Emergency Powers Orders relating to pigs and bacon are being continued, according to the White Paper circulated with the Bill. Does it follow that the 12 months' limit does not apply, but that, after that date, if the Pigs and Bacon Commission get information and the Minister signifies in his certificate that he has got this information, proceedings may be instituted within six months from the receipt of the information?

Mr. Aiken

All I can say is that if this Order which was made under the Emergency Powers Act were to go altogether, proceedings would have to be taken within six months after the date of the offence. This extends the time to 12 months. There is no interference with regard to the power of the State to institute proceedings in respect of offences committed up to 1st September at any time.

Mr. Cosgrave

Or, I suppose, even after that date in respect of these particular Orders?

Mr. Aiken

This is not my amendment. It is one which the Deputy's friends in the Seanad put in.

Mr. Cosgrave

I am not accusing the Minister of anything. I do not know who introduced the amendment.

Mr. McGilligan

Or even praising the Minister.

Mr. Cosgrave

The fact is that, under this Emergency Powers Order, there was that extended period of time in which, if the body I refer to got information, proceedings could be instituted. I assume that under this legislation that power still remains.

Mr. McGilligan

It is very doubtful.

Mr. Aiken

We are not interfering with any Order.

Mr. McGilligan

You are, I think. I do not know if Deputy Cosgrave's premises are correct, but if they are, you are interfering. The Deputy has made the point that under the Order dealing with pigs and bacon matters, the period was extended not merely by the unlimited time, but in this way, that whatever limitation there might be at any time on the taking of summary proceedings, it dated in certain connections from the date of the receipt of certain information and not from the date of the offence.

Mr. Aiken

Could the Deputy explain to me why it was necessary to have that, seeing that there was unlimited time?

Mr. McGilligan

For the reason that it was apparently considered that there might have been a relaxation of that unlimited time in which to take proceedings. I do not know what was in the mind of the draftsman but some reason made him provide that a prosecution should run within a limited time, the starting point of the limited time being the date of the receipt of the information. The Deputy has said so, and I understand it is correct. The Minister, I think, will agree with me in this, that, if there is such a power to date the limitation period from the date of the receipt of information, that power will no longer exist once this measure has been passed. The summary prosecution of any offence under Section 6 of the Act must take place within 12 months from the date of the offence and not from the date of the receipt of information.

Mr. Aiken

I think that is probably true.

Mr. McGilligan

Personally, I am all for limiting it. If the Government, with its horde of inspectors, cannot find out offences in time to have them prosecuted summarily inside 12 months, the individuals should be allowed to get away with it. The only thing I want to say about it is that I am not sure about the power of swinging over from summary prosecution to indictable offence. I am not sure that it is as easy as the Minister thinks, to say: "We have the man, but it is too late to prosecute him within 12 months. We will make it an indictable offence and prosecute him anyhow." It is not so easy in all cases to do that. The Minister, apparently, thinks it is.

Question put and agreed to.

Mr. Aiken

I move: That the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 2:—

Section 6, sub-section (9) deleted and the following sub-section substituted:—

(9) Notwithstanding sub-section (4) of Section 10 of the Petty Sessions (Ireland) Act, 1851, summary proceedings for an offence under this section may be instituted within 12 months from the date of the offence.

Question put and agreed to.

Mr. Aiken

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

Section 9. In page 7, Section 9, sub-section (1), after the words "order" in line 18, the word "and" inserted; the words "and every direction in writing" in line 19, and the words "or direction in writing given" in line 20-21, deleted.

This is the amendment which takes out of the matters to be judicially noticed by the court instructions in writing.

Question put and agreed to.

Mr. Aiken

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

Section 16. In sub-section (3), page 8, lines 29 and 30 and in lines 33 and 34 the words and figures "1st day of September, 1947" deleted and the words and figures "31st day of December, 1947" substituted therefor.

This extends the date of the operation of the Act from 1st September to 31st December. It was represented in the Seanad, with some force, that if unfortunately this Bill has to be renewed next year, it should be discussed in the autumn session rather than immediately before the summer recess.

Question put and agreed to.

Amendments Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 reported and agreed to.

Ordered: That the Seanad be notified accordingly.