Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 16 Feb 1965

Vol. 214 No. 3

Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Garda Síochána Legal Adviser.

26.

Mr. Ryan

asked the Minister for Justice whether, in view of the judgments of the Supreme Court in the case of The State (Quinn) v. Ryan and Quinn delivered on 31st July 1964, he proposes to have a separate adviser appointed to the Garda Síochána.

The Deputy appears to be assuming that, in the case in question, the Garda Síochána sought legal advice in advance and were incorrectly advised as to the matter that was the subject of the court's decision, namely, the constitutionality of sections 29, 30 and 31 of the Petty Sessions (Ireland) Act, 1851. If that is his assumption, it is not right.

Mr. Ryan

It is not my assumption.

The constitutionality of the sections in question had been unsuccessfully challenged before the Supreme Court on two previous occasions and there was no reason whatsoever why the Garda Síochána should seek advice on it in one particular case out of the hundreds they had handled down the years, nor did they in fact do so. When the matter was challenged in court, the Gardaí had their own counsel, as the judgments themselves make quite clear.

Mr. Ryan

Arising out of the grossly inaccurate assumption by the Minister that I have made a wrong assumption in the case in question, is it not a strange situation that while there appeared to be different counsel representing different lines of the State, they were advised by the one legal adviser?

Two lines of the State were represented separately in court.

Mr. Ryan

Both lines were instructed by the Chief State Solicitor.

That is so.

Mr. Ryan

We in Fine Gael do not believe in holding out jobs to supporters.

The Deputy is an expert in very chancy actions.

Top
Share