Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 20 Mar 1962

Vol. 194 No. 1

Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Paul Singer: Court Proceedings.

1.

asked the Taoiseach if he will state (a) the date upon which Paul Singer was first arrested; (b) the date upon which he was first returned for trial to the Dublin Circuit Court by the District Justice; (c) the date upon which an indictment against Paul Singer was lodged in the Dublin Circuit Court; (d) the reason for the delay in lodging the indictment in the Dublin Circuit Court; and (e) what directions (if any) have been given to ensure that indictments against persons returned for trial will be lodged without undue delay, and the date upon which such directions were given.

Paul Singer was first arrested on 30th May, 1959. He was first returned for trial to the Dublin Circuit Court by the District Justice on 23rd January, 1960. The indictment against him was lodged on 27th April, 1960.

The delay in lodging the indictment arose because of the enormous number of depositions and exhibits which had to be copied.

I am aware of no undue delay in lodging indictments and no special directions in this regard have recently been found necessary.

2.

asked the Taoiseach the number of counts in the indictment against Paul Singer which were quashed by the Court of Criminal Appeal on the ground that such counts were bad for duplicity.

Four counts on the indictment against Paul Singer were quashed by the Court of Criminal Appeal on the ground that they were bad for duplicity.

Is the Taoiseach aware of the grave public anxiety resulting from the failure of the court to be given an opportunity to adjudicate these matters on their merits on account of the technical difficulties which the Taoiseach has mentioned in his reply?

I doubt whether I could or should say anything that would appear to be a reflection on the courts.

I would ask the Taoiseach to consider whether in fact the technical difficulties described by him in the judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeal must not be regarded as some reflection on the efficacy of the law officials of the Government in preparing this case for submission to the court.

I assume that may be so, but I do not think that the verdict of the court could have been anticipated. I am afraid it is too technical for me to offer an opinion on it.

3.

asked the Taoiseach how many days or parts of days were occupied in connection with the criminal proceedings against Paul Singer (a) in the District Court in taking depositions on the first occasion; (b) in the Habeas Corpus proceedings instituted by Paul Singer (i) in the High Court and (ii) in the Supreme Court; (c) in the District Court in taking depositions on the second occasion; (d) in the prohibition proceedings; (e) in the first trial in the Central Criminal Court; and (f) in the appeal brought by Paul Singer to the Court of Criminal Appeal.

The information required by the Deputy is as follows: (a) 63 days, (b) (i) 2 days, (ii) 6 days; (c) 26 days, (d) 10 days, (e) 26 days, and (f) 27 days.

4.

asked the Taoiseach whether the foreman of the jury in the first trial of Paul Singer was an investor in Shanahan's Stamp Auctions Limited, and had a claim against the Company in liquidation.

The answers to both parts of the Deputy's question are in the affirmative.

5.

asked the Taoiseach whether the prosecution in relation to the jury panel in the first trial of Paul Singer took any steps to determine who, if any, of the jurymen on the panel they might challenge when a jury was being empanelled to try Paul Singer.

The normal procedure was followed in this case.

Is it not the Taoiseach's opinion that it was a very strange dereliction of duty on the part of the law officers of the State to allow a jury to be empanelled, when they had a right to object, which contained not only a man who was a servant of the liquidator but a man who had a personal interest in the transactions in respect of which the defendant was being tried?

The fact that a member of the jury was an employee of a firm of accountants concerned in the liquidation proceedings became known some days after the trial began but was not regarded as being important by prosecuting counsel, the Registrar or the trial judge, nor was it the reason for the subsequent appeal, which was based on the fact that this member of the jury was found to be an investor in the company, a matter which was not known to the prosecuting counsel or the judge or, if we accept his affidavit, to the defendant himself.

Surely the fact that the man in question was indirectly a servant of the liquidator and the company in respect of which many of these charges were being tried was a matter that should have been brought to the attention of the trial judge the moment it became known to the law officers of the State? Is it not a fact that after this information became available to the law officers within 24 hours of the proceedings having commenced, they were not brought to the attention of either the judge or the defence?

My information is that the trial judge was so informed. The point I am making is that the subsequent successful appeal was based on the grounds that the individual concerned was personally involved as an investor in the company. If the Deputy studies the judgment of the Appeal Court which I had placed in the Library at his request, he will find that the appeal was upheld by the judge on the grounds, first, that the juror should have himself indicated this interest in the case and, secondly, that the trial judge should have warned all the members of the jury panel of the obligation to reveal any such interest.

Surely in view of the very peculiar circumstances surrounding this case in which so many people have suffered loss, it was an ordinary precaution for counsel for the State to ascertain if any of the members of the jury were themselves losers or were interested parties in order to take the necessary precautions to ensure that nobody with an interest in the case should be a member of the jury? Even if it had happened after one, two or three days of the trial, it would have been a valid case on which counsel for the State should seek the discharge of the jury and to ask for a trial with a fresh jury which would not be open to any challenge.

I understand the responsibility for the preparation of the jury panel rests on the county registrar but I think it fair to point out that it would be a difficult task for him to check each juror, in view of the fact that some 30,000 people in Dublin were said to have been interested as investors in this concern. The fact that the juror in question was interested in that way did not come to light until after the trial was over. That applies not only to counsel on behalf of the State but it was not known to the defendant, as was stated in his affidavit.

The Taoiseach will agree that if the fact was known to counsel for the State at any stage in the trial, it should have been brought to the notice of the trial judge and indeed of the defendant also.

Certainly. The trial judge would have been informed of it.

6.

asked the Taoiseach whether the liquidator of Shanahan's Stamp Auctions Limited gave evidence at the first trial of Paul Singer and was called as a witness on behalf of the Attorney General.

The answers to both parts of this question are in the affirmative.

7.

asked the Taoiseach whether the Attorney General was made aware in the early stages of the first trial of Paul Singer in the Central Criminal Court that the foreman of the jury was a member of the staff of the firm of accountants, one of whose partners was the liquidator of Shanahan's Stamp Auctions Limited; and, if not, at what date the Attorney General was first made aware of this fact.

The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative.

Question No. 7 also asks for the date on which the Attorney General got the information.

My information is that the Attorney General was made aware of the fact that the foreman was employed by this firm of accountants a couple of days after the trial began but it was understood that he had nothing to do with the firm's handling of the affairs of the company. The matter became known through the county registrar who also, I understand, informed the judge, and it was assumed that any action necessary would have been taken by the court.

Would the Taoiseach not agree that at that stage something ought to have been done by the Attorney General to inform the court, through counsel for the State, of this fact and that the defendant should certainly have been warned?

I am told that the trial judge was informed.

Was he informed in open court?

I do not think so. This had nothing to do with the appeal. The appeal was not on the ground that the foreman of the jury was employed by Craig, Gardners, but that he personally was an investor in the stamp auctioneering company. If the Deputy will study the decision of the judge in the Court of Criminal Appeal, he will find that no importance was attached to the character of the juror's employment.

I do not accept that and I have read the decision of the Court of Criminal Appeal. The Taoiseach will agree with me that it is unfortunate that this information was not elicited in public court and communicated simultaneously not merely to the court but to the defendant and, if necessary, a new jury empanelled to try the case.

My information is that the trial judge was made aware of it.

8.

asked the Taoiseach the amount of money covered by the counts in the indictment against Paul Singer which were quashed by the Court of Criminal Appeal on the grounds that these counts were bad for duplicity.

The amounts involved were:

£

s.

d

Count No. 6

496

10

6

,, ,, 8

1,407

12

1

,, ,, 9

1,765

7

6

,, ,, 10

1,704

10

0

9.

asked the Taoiseach whether a count in the indictment on the first trial of Paul Singer covered a sum of nearly £800,000; and whether this count "overlapped" other charges and because of such "overlapping" and other defects the Court of Criminal Appeal held that it could not order a re-trial on this count involving nearly £800,000.

The answers to both parts of the question are in the affirmative.

Will the Taoiseach agree with me that where a man stands charged with being concerned in the disappearance of £800,000, it is unfortunate that these charges could never be determined clearly by the court on account of technical defects in the indictment and that the matter of fraudulent misrepresentation was never raised and, if so, would the Taoiseach agree with me that these defects reflect gravely on the law officers of the State?

The Deputy's question relates to the first trial of Paul Singer and that verdict was set aside by the Court of Criminal Appeal on the ground I have mentioned, namely, that a person interested as an investor in the business was a member of the jury.

And also for the reasons stated here.

I ask the Deputy to read the decision of the judge in the Court of Criminal Appeal. I do not think it would be right for me to attempt to interpret it.

Would the Taoiseach be prepared to say that he agrees that the general conduct of the proceedings does suggest some grave inadequacy on the part of the law officers of the State?

I do not think so. One of the characteristics of our system of law is that where a person is charged with a criminal offence, he is deemed innocent until proved guilty, and he must be proved guilty in accordance with evidence produced in court and very complicated procedures and rules designed to protect the interests of the defendant. The fact that the State failed to get a conviction, whether on technical grounds or otherwise, does not necessarily indicate any defects in the State's procedure. Also, I think we should be very careful ourselves not to do an injustice as, no matter what suspicions may be held, the fact is that the individual concerned has not been found guilty.

I entirely sympathise with the Taoiseach's view of the extreme care necessary in these cases, which largely accounts for the delay in my raising the matter as I have now done. Bearing in mind all the Taoiseach has said, does he advert to the fact that a young man, who can be described as little else than the innocent servant of the defendant, has served 15 months' hard labour for charges arising out of identical incidents?

That is a separate issue. On the main issue, may I again refer the Deputy to the judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeal? He will find quoted in that judgment—and I only learned of this myself when I read it—a very large number of references to somewhat similar cases where the verdicts of court were set aside because of technical considerations of similar character.

Is the Taoiseach not aware of the fact at this stage that a considerable number of honest credulous Irish citizens have been financially plucked and the State's legal machine has done nothing to protect them? Its chief achievement appears to me to be—and I think others hold the same view—to make a legendary character out of the chief plucker of the Irish people.

The State took the proceedings open to it in this case. It tried to secure a different outcome by reason of the evidence produced and the arguments advanced. I would ask the Deputy to keep in mind that in this community it is not merely enough to suspect someone—it must also be proved in law.

Is it not an obvious fact that charges involving £800,000 were so framed, handled and dealt with, that no verdict on the merits of those charges was possible?

I do not accept that.

Is it not perfectly clear to everyone in the country, even if it is not to the Taoiseach or if he will not admit it, that what happened was that the courts were not able to give a verdict on the merits of the charges involving £800,000 as to whether they were true or false? Is it not a fact that the matters were so handled by someone that there could not be an indictment?

I do not profess to have any legal knowledge, but it seems to me that the arguments of the State counsel were the more convincing.

What happened the £2,000,000 which the Irish public invested?

What about poor Shanahan?

Top
Share