asked the Taoiseach (1) on what grounds the Attorney General moved to have the trial of Senator Quinlan transferred from Thurles Circuit Court to the Central Criminal Court, despite the expressed willingness on the part of Senator Quinlan to meet the charges brought against him under the Road Traffic Acts on the earliest possible occasion, i.e. the May Session of the Thurles Circuit Court, where he appeared in person and through his solicitor; and (2) why it was necessary to allow four months to elapse between the date of the accident and the notice of decision to prosecute being served on Senator Quinlan.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Transfer of Trial.
3.
(1) The statutory provision for transfers of criminal trials from the Circuit Court to the Central Criminal Court was designedly framed in a way which made it unnecessary to state to the Court the reason for a transfer, whether the application is made by the prosecution or by the defence, and it has not been the practice to state reasons to the Court. It will be appreciated that in such circumstances it would be undesirable if reasons were to be elicited in answer to Parliamentary Questions.
(2) With reference to the second part of the question, the accident happened on 12th November, 1961, and notice of intention to institute a prosecution was served on 20th November, but as one of the two men injured in the accident was seriously ill it was not possible to take a statement from him for a period of two months. The issue of the summonses followed the normal course after the Garda file was completed, and there was no unusual delay.
It was so taken in this case. I have
Is it not quite exceptional procedure in a case of this character, where the defendant expressed his ready willingness to defend himself at the earliest opportunity at the local venue, which in this case was the Thurles Circuit Court, for the Attorney General to move for a transfer of the trial to the Central Criminal Court when there were no exceptional circumstances surrounding the allegations preferred by the Attorney General?
The Deputy is obviously trying to get me to answer a question which I have already indicated it would be undesirable to answer by way of Parliamentary Question. There is a procedure whereby such cases can be transferred to the Central Criminal Court without any reason being stated and it is obviously undesirable that the purpose of that procedure should be negatived by way of a Dáil Question.
Does the Taoiseach not see that there are reasonable grounds for the gravest misgiving when a person who is prominent in the public life of the country and who is associated with severe criticism of many of the Government's activities is kept in the unhappy situation in which Senator Quinlan found himself for a period of seven or eight months at a time when he was ready and willing to dispose of the charges against him, while others who are equally prominent in the public life were treated with special consideration by the Attorney General in respect of charges brought at his instance which resulted in immediate conviction and the imposition of penalties? When Senator Quinlan was brought before a jury, one of the charges was withdrawn by the trial judge and the jury took only about three minutes to acquit him of the other. Does the Taoiseach think that this is an equitable discharge of the discretion conferred on the Attorney General?
The decision to prosecute or not in cases of this kind can be taken by the Garda authorities without reference to the Attorney General. explained that there is a reason why the Attorney General assented to the transfer to the Central Criminal Court. In this case, no injustice was done.
Is it not also clear that there was some reason why the Attorney General should decide that this case be transferred, despite the fact that the defendant was perfectly willing to have it dealt with at the local venue?
The decision to prosecute was taken by the Garda authorities without reference to the Attorney General. As regards the decision to transfer the venue, the Attorney General agreed to the proposal of prosecuting counsel.
Is it not also a fact that the file was sent to the Attorney General and that there is grave ground for comment that one man was treated in one way and another man in another?
One was convicted and the other acquitted.
Yes, one was convicted and the other was acquitted. The difference was that in one case penalties were imposed and in the other case, the judge threw out one charge and the jury contemptuously dismissed the allegation of the Attorney General in the other.
In this case, the transfer was entirely in the interests of the accused person.
He did not think so and he was the best judge.
That is the whole purpose of the statute.