asked the Minister for Justice if he will state in connection with the case of an attack on a widow's house mentioned in the course of the debate on the Estimate for the Department of Justice on the 7th July, 1950, what sentence was passed by the Circuit Court on the men charged in connection with the attack, what action the Minister had taken in regard to the sentence, and whether any representations had been made to him in the matter; and, if so, through whom they had been presented.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Circuit Court Case.
In the case referred to, the Circuit Court judge imposed a sentence of two months' imprisonment with hard labour on each of the convicted men.
On a petition being made to him, the Minister for Justice in exercise of the prerogative of mercy remitted the sentence of imprisonment, on each of the convicted men paying a fine of £5 and entering into a recognisance in the sum of £25 to keep the peace for a period of 12 months.
The Minister for Justice has always taken the view that it would be undesirable to state the grounds for the exercise of the prerogative in particular cases. For this reason, I am not prepared to say what representations were made to the Minister in support of the petition in this case.
Is the Minister aware of the fact that the Circuit Court judge who had this case on appeal in the course of his judgment said:—
"I have rarely heard of a more blackguardly performance than that which took place on the night of the 29th April or the morning of the 30th outside Mrs. Davis' house."?
I would ask the Minister to say if that statement of the judge was recorded on the documents before the Minister for Justice when he remitted the sentence of imprisonment and commuted it to a fine of £5.
Is the Minister aware that this woman was charged at the Circuit Court at Nass with giving false evidence, that she pleaded guilty to such charge, but that the judge directed for certain reasons that a plea of not guilty be entered?
I wish to know whether the Minister is prepared to answer either my supplementary question or Deputy Sweetman's supplementary——
I take it that Deputy MacEntee, when he put his supplementary, was not in possession of the information given by Deputy Sweetman.
I was in possession of that information and I want to say that another question will be put down but I would ask now, arising out of the supplementary which the Minister refused to answer, did the judge ask the State solicitor who appeared in this case if the accused had been informed of what the law was; as Deputy Sweetman said, that the judge directed that a plea of not guilty should be entered and that he then discharged her on the grounds that she was innocent?
Having pleaded guilty.
Was it not a frameup, an action of vengeance against this woman in order to cover up what had been done by the Minister for Justice?
The Deputy should obtain the facts before he makes such outrageous charges in the House under the protection of the House. The Deputy is obviously not in possession of the facts of the case. The Deputy does not know what happened in the course of the last 48 hours.
Is it not a fact that the woman admitted that she gave false evidence?
That is so.
Major de Valera
Arising out of the Minister's reply to the supplementary, would the Minister not think now that, in view of what has taken place, it would be desirable to lay all the facts before the House including the names of the people who made representations in the first instance—all the relevant facts?
The Deputy is very simple.
We want to know what Deputy T.F. O'Higgins's part was in this matter.
That is what Deputy MacEntee is concerned with, not the question of an injustice done.
I am concerned with the fact that the courts of justice were interfered with by the Minister for Justice.
We have it now.