I asked the Minister for Justice the following question today:—
"To ask the Minister for Justice if he will state whether special instructions directing members of the Garda Síochána to warn children alleged to have committed offencesinstead of bringing them before district justices have been issued recently; and, if so, if he will state what those instructions are and whether they were issued with his authority."
To that question the Minister replied:—
"The Commissioner, Garda Síochána, has issued instructions that children under 14 years of age are not to be prosecuted by the police for minor offences in any case until the district officer has considered the circumstances of the case, and that if the district officer is satisfied—
(a) that the offence can be regarded as a childish lapse,
(b) that the child is not of a criminal disposition,
(c) that his parents can be relied on to discipline him,
(d) that the injured party does not desire to see the child prosecuted, and
(e) that no person over 14 years of age is involved in the offence and is being prosecuted for it,
the district officer may direct that the case be disposed of by a warning given to the child in the presence of his parents.
The instructions were issued with the knowledge and approval of the Attorney-General, who was consulted beforehand."
When I heard that reply, I indicated that I did not think it was a matter that could be dealt with satisfactorily on the basis of supplementary question and answer, and I gave notice that, with your approval, Sir, I would raise the matter on the Adjournment. I want to say at the beginning that I welcome the fact that the Commissioner of the Garda has issued instructions of this kind to the members of the Garda because, in many debates dealing with the Department of Justice, I have indicated in this House that I disapproved of the practice of bringing before the District Court little children of eight, nine, ten, 11 or 12 years of age on rather trivial or minor offences. Ifelt that there were grave objections to the bringing of these children before the court. I instanced the case of the Dublin District Court, which is under the control of one of our most distinguished district justices, who is internationally recognised as an authority on this matter of alleged offences by children and, in fact, of child welfare in that regard. Even in his court, children who had been brought there from all over the city, although they might feel on their way to the court that it was a serious matter to be brought there, once they had congregated in the waiting room and had met boys of their own age from different parts of the city and began to exchange stories about the reasons why they were there, took a different view of the matter. I felt that that was detrimental in a general way for the children, and I suggested that perhaps it would be better if these children were not brought before the court at all.
I am very glad to discover that the Commissioner has gone into this matter and has issued regulations which the Minister mentioned here this afternoon in answer to my question. There are two aspects of the Commissioner's instruction with which I want to deal specially. The first is that dealt with in sub-paragraph (d)—that the injured party does not desire to see the child prosecuted. If the child commits an offence which the local district officer, the local superintendent, considers a childish lapse, I think we would all agree that there should be no prosecution in that case. If, further, the local superintendent is of opinion that the child is not of a criminal disposition, we would all agree also that there should be no court proceedings in that case. His parents can be relied upon to discipline him and I think we would all agree that the parents should discipline him rather than that he should be brought before the court and brought into an atmosphere which at his age may result in harm to him.
The Commissioner's instructions say further that if no person over 14 years of age is involved in the offence and is being prosecuted for it, the district officer may direct that the case be disposed of by a warning given to thechild in the presence of its parents. I object to the injured party having any say in the decision as to whether there should be a prosecution or not. Take a case where a little child of eight, nine or ten years of age steals three oranges out of a shop. The owner of the shop reports the matter to the Guards. It is up to the Guards to deal with the case in accordance with law and I think the House and the Minister would agree with me that the owner of these oranges should have no right to say whether the child should be prosecuted in court or not, because the owner of the oranges may be a cranky sort of person who would maliciously want to see the parents and the child hauled before the court.
I want to make the point, in the first place, that the injured party, or as I described him, the owner of the oranges, should have no say—good, bad or indifferent—as to whether the child should be prosecuted. I think the House will agree with me in that. We know what human nature is. We know that a person of ordinary humane instincts would not desire a prosecution of any kind to be brought against a little child of ten, 11, 12, 13 or 14 years of age but we do know that unfortunately in our community, as in other countries, there are spiteful, malicious people and if the police officer went to such a person and said: "We would not like to bring that child to court; are you agreeable that the charge should be dropped?" a malicious type of person would say: "No, I want this young blackguard brought before the court." I do not think the owner of the three oranges, the "comic", or whatever it may happen to be, should have that right and I would take strong exception to it. I am perfectly certain the Minister would agree that that is a point which should get more investigation in view of the objection taken to it.
The next point which I mentioned to the Ceann Comhairle that I wanted very specially to raise was that the district officer may direct that the case be disposed of by a warning given to the child in the presence of his parents. I feel that is objectionable. In this country where we have a Constitutionbased on Christian principles, a Constitution based on the authority of the parents and on the integrity of the home, if a child commits an offence that is of a trivial nature his parents can be relied upon to discipline him. If that child is to be dealt with he can only be dealt with properly either by the court or by the child's parents.
The point I want to make is that where an offence is considered to be of such a trivial nature that it should not be dealt with by the court, then the only other persons who have authority under the Constitution and the Christian outlook of this country to deal with the child, are the parents of the child, particularly where the parents are people who can be relied on to discipline the child.
If the Guards are to warn children, I want to try and visualise what it would appear like. A district officer may be of opinion that if there is a trivial childish lapse the matter should be brought to the notice of the parents. In these circumstances, is a Guard to go to that house, is he to go in uniform or in mufti, is he to go alone or with somebody else? When he goes into the house is he to say to the father: "I want you and your wife to attend before me in this room bringing this child, Patrick, with you"? Are we to have a court in that room, a judicial hearing and what is the nature of the warning that is to be issued by the Guard to the little child?
These are the difficulties which have struck me in regard to this, the conditions that make this procedure envisaged by the Commissioner objectionable. If one of my children committed a trivial offence of that nature, and if a Garda officer came to me and said that he wanted me to parade the child in the room and warn him in my presence, I would take the most serious objection to that. I would feel that as a parent I was the person entitled to issue the warning or to take disciplinary steps myself, and I think the Minister would agree with that. I am not condemning the Commissioner in regard to this, nor am I condemning the Minister or raising any point ofcriticism. I think that very sound steps have been taken in bringing this matter to light, but I am taking the earliest opportunity to draw attention to what I consider are objectionable features in regard to it.
There is another point we cannot lose sight of. There is always the danger that a matter of this kind can be used as a sort of corruption or blackmail against the parents of the child. The Guard can say to the parents: "I could bring your boy to court but I am going to let him off with a warning and not bring him to court." There are so many objections connected with that that I do not like to think where it could possibly lead. I would much prefer, if there is to be a warning given, that it should be given by an experienced district justice rather than by a person who would have no knowledge of how to deal with a little child in matters of this kind. I put it to the Minister that there are so many difficulties and dangers involved that the question of the injured party having the right to say whether there should be a prosecution or not or a Guard having the right of warning should be reconsidered by the Minister and the Commissioner.
There are other matters that will arise out of that which can also be considered. One is that if this happens on two occasions or on three occasions what is to be done? If the parents are not likely to discipline the child what is to be done? I suggest to the Minister that where we have, as we have in Dublin, a most experienced district justice who is dealing with these problems in regard to these children every day of the week and these experienced court probation officers who are dealing with children every day of the week, it would be desirable for the Minister, the Attorney-General, the Commissioner of the Gardaí and the district justice to get together and work out some system that would be satisfactory.
One thing which is always upheld in this country and in any country based on the form of democracy we have is that the judiciary is separate fromthe Executive. The police are part of the executive authority, and if you give the police the authority to warn children you are giving them judicial functions in matters of a criminal kind and that has been resisted by all the people who are authorities on this particular matter. The Guards are entitled to say: "We will take no proceedings." They do that on many occasions. They are entitled, if they get a complaint about a child, to refer it to the parents, because the parents are the important factor as far as dealing with children is concerned. But they are not entitled, or cannot be permitted, to take upon themselves to say: "We will warn this child in this form or in the other form."
I notice that in Dublin City, particularly in connection with children going to school, in recent years the Garda authorities have put Guards on duty to see that school children cross the road in safety. I have been most impressed and delighted to see the spirit of comradeship and friendship between these children and the Guards. I want to see that spirit maintained. I do not want the Guards to be put in the position of being bogey-men to children. I oppose on general principles the right of Guards to exercise judicial authority or to warn anybody, whether a child or a citizen, in connection with this matter. I say that the Minister and the Garda Commissioner are taking a very important progressive step forward. I am asking the Minister to consider these two provisions with regard to the instruction in the light of the objections I have advanced in regard to them.
