asked the Taoiseach if he will take steps to direct the withdrawal of any pending prosecutions brought on the grounds of intimidation against members of the NFA in view of the possibility that recent statements, reported to have been made by the Minister for Justice at a press conference, might be regarded by those charged or their legal advisers as possibly prejudicial to their position.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Prosecutions of NFA Members.
1.
I do not intend to do so. I do not regard the statements by the Minister for Justice referred to in the question as prejudicial in any way to pending prosecutions.
Does the Taoiseach then consider it appropriate that when, as the Minister for Justice stated at this press conference, there are prosecutions pending involving 90 charges, he should, at the same time, refer to files of confidential reports from Garda superintendents showing what he described, I think, as a "chain of incidents of intimidation" and further does he consider it appropriate that in the context of pending prosecutions referred to by the Minister for Justice he should also refer to the Garda superintendents' reports as showing clear evidence that a campaign of intimidation was mounting on a wide scale over a number of counties? I would like to suggest to the Taoiseach, and I hope he will agree with me, that while, personally, I do not believe the Bench would allow themselves to be prejudiced by any ex parte ministerial statements of this sort, at the same time, the people who are charged with these offences and their legal advisers might very well feel that statements of this kind, particularly by the Minister for Justice, who is himself a lawyer, might prejudice their position. In those circumstances and having regard to the fact that the Taoiseach, when he pre-empted time on television, referred to the importance of securing that justice should not only be done but should be seen to be done, I would urge very strongly on the Taoiseach to see to it that any charges pending at the time the Minister gave this press conference should be dropped.
I do not see anything inappropriate in the statement of the Minister for Justice saying that there is evidence of widespread intimidation because that is the fact.
Is the place to say that not in court?
I am glad to hear the Deputy say that he does not expect the Bench will be prejudiced in any way nor will the defendants be prejudiced in any way as a result of the statements made by the Minister for Justice. I share that view with the Deputy and that reinforces me in the answer I have already given, that I do not intend to give any direction of the kind sought by the Deputy.
May I put this to the Taoiseach: if, as he suggests now and as the Minister for Justice suggested in his press conference, there is clear evidence, will the Taoiseach not agree with me that the place to present that evidence is in court on the hearing of the prosecutions and not by ex parte ministerial pronouncements at press conferences calculated to get widespread publicity before the hearing?
Let us be factual. Since the Deputy is being so legalistic, I did not use the words "clear evidence". I said there was evidence of widespread——
The Minister for Justice used the words "clear evidence".
I am answering for myself. The Minister for Justice used these words, as I do, in the general context, and as such they cannot be seen or interpreted in any way as prejudicing any individual case. The facts of each case will depend on their presentation, and the judgment of the courts will depend on the manner in which the facts are presented. Whether the evidence that has been mentioned by the Minister for Justice is sufficient to satisfy the courts is another matter, and a matter entirely for the courts.
The Minister for Justice is in effect saying he regards the evidence as clear.
I should like to ask the Taoiseach a question in his capacity as Leader of the House. We have imposed upon ourselves as Members of the House a self-denying ordinance in that we will not discuss any cases which are sub judice in the courts, lest an injustice might be done, or lest it might appear that less than justice was being done. As that restriction rests on us in Dáil Éireann, would the Taoiseach not agree that a heavier obligation rests on that member of the Executive who is responsible for the administration of justice?
I fully subscribe to the Deputy's views in so far as they affect individual and identifiable cases. In the past few months we have had discussions on the Criminal Justice Bill in which references were made to the use of flick knives and other forms of violence. Cases of that sort were pending before the courts and there was no question whatever of prejudicing the defendants in those cases by the references made in this House by Deputies on the other benches or by Ministers.
Now that the Taoiseach has brought down the question of identifiable cases, has his attention been drawn to the fact that at this press conference the Minister for Justice is also reported as saying that there was also a prosecution pending against three prominent members of the NFA who are alleged to have interfered with Fianna Fáil collectors in County Meath? Surely that is a case where the defendants are identifiable?
There was more than one case.
In those circumstances, will the Taoiseach also ensure that the prosecution against these people is dropped? May I conclude by saying this, and I will not stand up again? The Taoiseach will have noted that I have made no complaint, good, bad or indifferent, against the statements and charges of intimidation made by the Taoiseach in his television appearance or by other Ministers. My concern is purely with the Minister for Justice because, as Deputy Dillon has pointed out, he is the Minister charged with the administration of justice. I make no complaint against other Ministers. I think the Taoiseach should regard this as a particular case in the light of the office which the Minister holds.
The Minister in referring to the cases quoted by the Deputy used the necessary qualification. He used the Deputy's own words —"alleged interference". Therefore, that was not to be taken as in any way implying that the Minister was satisfied there was interference. May I remind the Deputy that there are already on record 18 cases of intimidation proven in the District Courts?
They will have to be proved in the courts and not at press conferences.