asked the Minister for Justice if he will state, with reference to a reply of 1st February last regarding the withdrawal of charges in a case of alleged robbery with violence, the charges in question; and the dates upon which (a) the Garda Síochána (i) completed their inquiries and (ii) submitted the matter to the Attorney General, (b) the Attorney General decided that the evidence did not justify continuing with the prosecution, (c) the injured party was notified of the decision, and (d) the court was notified of the decision.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Robbery with Violence Charge.
28.
Mr. O'Malley
I do not consider that it would be proper for me to supply information as to charges preferred in court in a particular case and, of course, this applies with even greater force where, as in this case, it is over two years since the matter arose and where the decision of the Attorney General was that the evidence did not justify proceeding further. Rule 85 of the District Court Rules, however, provides a means by which such information may be obtained privately by a person with a bona fide interest in the matter. A fee of 7/6d is payable.
Communications between the Garda Síochána and the law officers are confidential and it would be contrary to established practice to give information about them on the lines sought in the question.
The case referred to came before the District Court on 14th December, 1965 and the Garda records show that the solicitors for the complainant were informed verbally on 21st December, 1965 and in writing on 7th January, 1966, of the decision to withdraw charges.
Would the Minister be good enough to say in what way the matter came before the court on the 14th December? Was that the day on which the court was notified that the charges were withdrawn and if that is so why was the complainant and his legal advisers not informed beforehand that the Attorney General was not proceeding with the case?
Mr. O'Malley
I am afraid I cannot give that information to the Deputy.
Is the Minister aware that the complainant in this particular case was seen at the time that he complained of having been assaulted, by persons other than the assailant, to bear several wounds and bloodstains on his face and on other parts of his body, and in light of that will the Minister say how the Attorney General can justify not proceeding on the grounds that the evidence was insufficient?
Mr. O'Malley
I could say that but I will not. I will simply say that a decision to prosecute or not to prosecute on the evidence is clearly one that cannot be discussed in the Dáil and to take any other view is to have a trial in the Dáil.
Question No. 29.
Are we to understand that the Minister is asserting that a matter which is not sub judice, which never was sub judice because the Attorney General would not allow it to proceed in court, may not be discussed in Dáil Éireann? If that is so, I wish to give notice, Sir, that I wish to raise this matter on the Adjournment.
The Chair will communicate with the Deputy.