asked the Minister for Justice whether, in view of his recent statement in Dáil Éireann that there is no question of using powers of detention as a substitute for trial by court, and that in any case in which the police can get evidence, court proceedings will follow, he will state why a number of the men, including a Member, who are at present interned, were detained on their way from prison at the expiration of sentences imposed for specific offences on evidence supplied by the police.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Use of Powers of Detention.
Detention under the Offences Against the State Act is not punitive but with a view to preventing the commission of offences by the persons detained. When satisfactory evidence of the commission of offences is obtainable the persons concerned are charged with such offences and if convicted and sentenced suffer the punishment imposed by the courts. There is no question of substituting detention for punitive imprisonment.
The persons mentioned were convicted of offences and sentenced to terms of imprisonment, which sentences they served. I was of opinion that their detention under the Offences Against the State Act was necessary to prevent the commission of further offences which would be prejudicial to the safety of the State and I accordingly authorised it.
May we take it then that the statement made previously by the Minister on the night of November 6th was incorrect? In that statement he said that, where possible, men would be brought to trial where evidence was made available by the Garda and that it was only where evidence of likely offences was not available that recourse would be had to internment. Is it not a fact that the 52 men mentioned in reply to the previous question had already been arrested, charged and sentenced for specific offences on evidence supplied by the Garda? Prior to their release at the end of these sentences, they were taken by members of the forces under the Minister's control and brought to the Curragh Camp without any evidence or likelihood that they would commit further offences. Is that not contempt and flouting of the law as it stands?
Each of the individuals to whom the Deputy has referred was convicted of criminal offences under the Offences Against the State Act. It was my opinion that if these people were released, they would have resumed their former activities and because I believed that, I decided they should be put into further detention in the internment camp.
Can I take it that the position of the 52 men concerned is no different from that of the other men interned in the camp? Is it not a fact that these 52 men were charged and served sentences for alleged specific offences under the Offences Against the State Act? Is it suggested now that the Minister's opinion is sufficient to have these men further interned without charge or trial, at his own whim?