Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 28 May 1968

Vol. 235 No. 1

Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Letter from Attorney General's Office.

1.

asked the Taoiseach if he is aware that a reply dated 25th April which issued from the Attorney General's Office to a member of Dáil Éireann concerning a constituent (name supplied) was discourteous and abrupt in manner; and if any general instructions exist in relation to the framing of letters relating to constituents.

The answer to both parts of the Deputy's question is in the negative.

I take it that the Taoiseach has actually seen the letter to which I refer?

In the light of that, does the Taoiseach not consider that in matters of this kind, which are of a delicate nature and in which a certain degree of humanity is called for in conveying news to people who are innocent of any offence, relating to their relatives, it is surely no more than to be expected that the Attorney General's Office, or indeed any other organ of the State, should write that news in such a fashion as will endeavour to soften the blow for these innocent sufferers? I am using these words because I do not want to identify the case. Does the Taoiseach not consider that there is an obligation on all public servants to be civil at least and to try to appreciate the ordinary human feelings of the public when conveying news of this nature?

I agree with what the Deputy contends, but I think there is some misunderstanding of what the communication in fact was. The letter which the lady concerned got in respect of her son from the Attorney General's Office was, to my mind, not in discourteous terms, even if they were strictly legal terms. This lady implied from that terminology that it was a discourteous letter. It was not a discourteous letter, nor was it intended to be. The Deputy got a similar letter and I am sure he will agree that there was no discourtesy disclosed on the face of that letter.

May I ask the Taoiseach if he thinks it desirable that it should be made plain that quite apart from the question of deliberate discourtesy—and I do not suggest this was present in this case—there is an obligation to convey bad news in such a manner as will make the blow fall as lightly as possible on the recipient, particularly when the recipient is innocent?

There is in existence a circular dating 20 years back calling on all civil servants to deal on all occasions with the public as courteously and as kindly as possible. I do not think that circular was departed from in this instance. If I might elaborate slightly, the question was whether an extradition warrant should be executed or not after a certain sentence was served abroad. The words of the Attorney General's letter were that having looked into the case he had come to the conclusion that the warrant should be executed, but apparently the unfortunate lady concluded that the warrant would be killed; in other words, that it would not be effective and that may have caused the distress involved in this case.

Is the Taoiseach aware that there are public servants who do not deal with letters from the general public either courteously or discourteously, because they ignore them?

We are dealing with a specific case and the Deputy may not raise this matter.

Is it not in the public interest generally to make it manifest— and knowing the Attorney General as we all do, it is unthinkable that from him there should come any letter designed to hurt the feelings of an afflicted person—that if any offence were given, it arises from the common form which is issued and which certainly should never have proceeded from a person in that high office for the purpose of offending an afficted mother?

It was not intended as such. There was no such intention whatever. The Attorney General's Office is used to dealing with people who understand legal terminology, and legal terminology was used in the correspondence in this case and, unfortunately, by their interpretation of the words I have just mentioned, the lady in question got the wrong impression of what the decision was. That decision was explained to her in subsequent correspondence. I might say that at this stage and since, perhaps, Deputy Dunne took up the case, the man himself has written to the Attorney General indicating that there were facts surrounding the circumstances of his imprisonment which were not disclosed up to now, facts in which the probation officer in Britain has now become involved, and it has been suggested that there is a possibility of the rehabilitation of this man by contact with that probation officer. The Attorney General has written to the man himself asking that the probation officer be put in touch with him and the case will be considered further.

Some progress has been made.

Top
Share