Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 24 Jun 1965

Vol. 216 No. 10

Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Customs Seizure of Van.

15.

asked the Minister for Finance why the van of butter seized by customs authorities in 1962, together with the £100 paid by the owner (name supplied), to redeem the vehicle, have not been returned to him in view of the fact that the courts cleared him of the charge of smuggling.

The Revenue Commissioners propose to institute legal proceedings under the customs laws for the forfeiture and condemnation of the goods in question. These proceedings are distinct from the penalty proceedings in which, as stated by the Deputy, the person was acquitted.

Surely the Minister will agree that if at the time, 1962, court action was taken against this man and he was cleared of the charge of smuggling butter, it is most unfair that the Department will not now return to him the butter, or its value, since the butter will have to be destroyed, and the £100 paid by him to redeem the van? He has committed no offence but the Department still punish him.

He was acquitted on a charge of having guilty knowledge of the special alleged offence but that does not mean to say the goods with which he was found to have been associated were not smuggled goods.

Is it not a fact that this man was discharged by the court, that in fact he was in possession of the van and the property, butter, which he had not smuggled? Surely the Minister should see to it that the civil servants are not allowed to reverse the decision of the court?

He proved legally that he did not smuggle the butter. The court decided that legally he did not smuggle it but that decision did not affect the question of whether or not the butter was smuggled.

Is the Minister serious in saying that the fact the court decided the goods were not smuggled does not affect his mind in the matter at all? Surely the courts are the institution the Minister and his officials, as well as everyone else, must turn to for decisions on these questions?

Scrap the courts.

If Deputy O'Higgins were sitting in the van, and he were charged and acquitted, that would not prove that the butter in the van in which Deputy O'Higgins was sitting was not smuggled.

(Cavan): That may apply to the butter, but surely if the man was acquitted on the ground that he had not guilty knowledge, he was innocent and the van should be returned to him?

(Cavan): Plus the £100. Surely the Minister will agree the £100 was taken as a deposit on the van? The court cleared him of an illegal operation.

Is it not a fact that this man was driving his own van, that he can prove the butter was not smuggled, that he cleared that matter in the court four years ago? Is it not a fact that he insisted he would have the butter or its value and the van? Is it not contempt of court that the Minister's officials are now taking action against a man who was cleared by the court?

The butter came from Santa Claus.

It came from a town in County Cavan.

Are the Revenue Commissioners not bound by a decision of the court?

It does not appear they are so bound, if they are fining this man £100.

It amounts to fining an innocent man £100.

Are the Revenue Commissioners not in contempt of court?

The Revenue Commissioners should be charged with getting butter and money under false pretences.

Will the Minister look further into it?

The matter is sub judice now. I have no function. If, as Deputy Tully says, the man can prove the butter was not smuggled——

He proved it four years ago. I regret the necessity to have to raise this matter again, but, Sir, with your permission, I propose to raise it on the Adjournment.

I shall give the Deputy the answer if I am allowed to reply.

Top
Share