Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 13 Feb 1969

Vol. 238 No. 7

Criminal Justice Bill, 1967: Second Stage (Resumed).

Question again proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."
Debate resumed on the following amendment:
To delete all words after "That" and substitute: "Dáil Éireann declines to give a Second Reading to the Bill on the grounds that certain of the provisions contained in Part VI and Part VIII constitute an unnecessary interference with long established democratic rights of citizens and may involve An Garda Síochána in matters of a party political character."
—(Deputy M.J. O'Higgins.)

During the time that the two Ministers were here last night I said that while listening to Deputy Dillon, who is always very entertaining, I regretted that he apparently has decided to leave public life at the end of this Dáil session because one could listen to him for hours without agreeing to anything that he would say. However, I did agree with some of the things he said last night but when he related them to the Bill and referred to what I have described on many occasions as the "Reds under the bed" I could not agree. As far as I am aware, most of the trouble in this country is not started by Reds. If there are people getting Russian gold for the purpose of stirring up trouble here they certainly do not seem to be getting very much because people who have claimed to be Communists seem to be doing extremely badly no matter what standard is applied.

Earlier speakers said that this is a lawyers' Bill. While I agree that lawyers, of necessity, must know a lot more about the phraseology used in the Bill than the ordinary layman, ordinary Deputies who are not engaged in law are entitled to put forward their point of view. It would be too bad if only lawyers were entitled to comment on this legislation, because it is legislation which will affect very many sections of the community.

It is true that a number of the sections included in the Bill could more easily be understood by lawyers but it is also true that there is a very wide field covered on which those who are not engaged in law can make sensible comment. With regard to the repeal of old Acts, there is one point which often puzzles me. I do not know why this was not carried out earlier. Many of these Acts date back to 1297 and from that up to 1967. I cannot see that it should be necessary to repeal laws which have been passed as recently as 1967, but I wonder if the Minister has done a clean job of this. If my memory serves me correctly, there are in existence certain other laws which have not been wiped off the Statute Book. For instance, I think there is one still in existence which makes it illegal for a parish priest or a bishop of the Catholic Church so to describe himself. This does not appear to be included in the Act to be repealed. Whether there is any significance in that I do not know. Maybe it has been repealed and I have not noticed it. There are a number of others which, I understand, are still hanging around, and it might be a good idea if all those were removed from the Statute Book of Irish Law. They are a carryover from British Law and the only reason, I suppose, they were not dealt with earlier is that they were mostly forgotten. However, the fact that they are still there means they can be used. Occasionally these Acts going back a couple of hundred years are quoted in court cases where somebody is being prosecuted for doing something or other and, while it makes very little difference to the eventual decision, it does annoy people to find they are fined or otherwise punished under a law which was enacted more than a hundred years ago for an entirely different reason.

The question of the amendment of certain of the proposals which the Minister has mentioned makes discussion on this part of the Bill a little bit awkward, because we have not got the amendments down in black and white. The Minister has stated—and, according to the press, he has explained them more fully at the Fianna Fáil Ard Fheis than he did to the House —the proposed amendments to Part VI of the Bill and I would like to comment on some of the provisions contained in it and which he proposes to change.

The question of a public meeting or procession or demonstration is mentioned here. It would be a pity if any Government or any democracy introduced legislation to prevent peaceful processions, peaceful meetings or peaceful demonstrations. Having said that, I should like to say to Deputy Dillon that it is not right that he and many other prominent people in the country should try to compare the position in the Six Counties with the situation here. We change Governments through the ballot box. We do not change Governments by demonstrations in the streets. If we are a democracy— and we are a democracy—then that must always be borne in mind. To try to say that what happened in Derry when somebody, who according to Deputy Dillon, was unwittingly pushed against a police barrier and got a cut head for his pains, was the same as what could happen here is not a fair comparison at all.

I dislike intensely violent demonstrations on the street. The people who engage in them do no good to themselves, to the country or to anything else. I also disagree with Deputy Dillon, and other people who have spoken in the same vein over the past two weeks, that the general authority or responsibility for running the country is being taken away from this House. Whether we like the Government in power or not, we still have a Government which was democratically elected, which will be standing for election again within the next 12 months, and the ordinary sensible voters of the country have the right to return them or reject them. It does no good to the country to suggest that we are only a talking shop and that we no longer create any impression on the country or have anything to do with the day-to-day running of the country.

Unfortunately, over the last couple of years it has become popular for certain types of demonstration to take place in cities all over the world. Again, Deputy Dillon last night compared what happened in various cities in America and Central Europe with what has happened in this country. I do not think the comparison is fair except in so far as small people in this country who would be better engaged doing other things aped in a very small way what they saw happening elsewhere and thereby gained a certain amount of notoriety.

The trouble with us here is that we seem to blame students for an awful lot of things. The number of students involved in creating disturbances in this city over the past number of years has been very small. In fact, the percentage of students involved in this sort of thing is so small that they would hardly be worth noticing but for the publicity which their activities have got. It is rather odd to find, when one checks up, that the students who demonstrate and talk about improved social conditions, and about the necessity to have new housing for workers and better working conditions and all these things which are so desirable, are usually the sons and daughters of wealthy people, not the sons and daughters of workers. The reason for that is that workers' sons and daughters who are in the universities have only a limited time during which they must pass their examinations in order to get a better living for themselves and their children than was given to them because they came out of homes where, in many cases, want was well known.

I am speaking from experience. I know what the situation is. It is an unfortunate thing that these people give the impression, as I heard some of them say, that their cause is a common one with workers who are on strike. They are talking through their hats. These people are very noisy; they can afford to be absent from classes and to go around. It does not matter to them whether they pass their examinations or not because they will not starve. However, it is rather interesting to find where they go after they have taken their degrees, because these people do not appear on platforms looking for social justice for the workers of this country in the years afterwards.

I have no objection to young people working off their surplus energy in parades or demonstrations of any kind so long as it is realised what they are and so long as they do not cause damage or disturbance to public or private property or to individuals. I have been condemned for expressing these sentiments before, but people in my station in life are used to this sort of thing. It should be remembered that students have no fixed place in society. They are at college for the purpose of learning and qualifying for a trade or profession, and when they finish their studies they go their separate ways. I have been looking at some of them who some years ago were very radical in their views and talked about what should be done to change society. They fitted very snugly into the existing society as soon as they got their degrees and found they could think as adults and not as children. I do not want it to be understood by anybody that I think it is wrong for students to demonstrate. If they want to demonstrate peacefully, if they have time to do it and they can afford to do it, good luck to them. In fact, Deputy Dunne made a comment to the Minister which he resented but which I do not think, on reflection, he would resent. I was looking at a photograph taken in 1932 in which the Minister was found, complete with peak cap and muffler, in the front ranks of a group of students who were marching to take Arbour Hill. The Minister was marching to Arbour Hill. Arbour Hill is still there and the Minister is now the Minister for Justice. I do not think any the worse of him for that but I am using that demonstration as an example of how young people may think in a certain way but being grown up realise that their thinking as adolescents must change as years go on. Arbour Hill was not attacked and the only fellow who suffered must have been the fellow who had a good camera. The year was 1932 and the photograph was an excellent one. The camera was taken from him, the film was taken from it, and the camera thrown in the river. If he is alive now I am sure if he applied to the Minister and the other eminent gentlemen in that parade they would contribute to the purchase of a good modern camera for him.

I am not saying this to embarrass the Minister but I am using it as an example to those who try to make out that because students say something the world should stop and listen. I saw, and was also surprised to find, certain eminent people in this country and other countries saying that the youth had something to say and should be listened to. It is interesting to note that when the Americans and Russians were selecting people for their space flights they did not pick university students; they picked people who were adult and who could think properly and react properly. I am quite sure I will have a number of comments from my friends, the students, if they take the trouble to read what I am saying this morning. That does not alter the fact that students are students and should not be taken too seriously. So long as they parade and have their meetings in a reasonable way we should not object.

The Minister has a proposal in the Bill that it would be necessary to get permission from the Garda before a meeting or a procession would take place. He announced at the Ard Fheis and in this House that he proposed to amend this proposal in a certain way. The Minister said that the situation now is that the Garda can say that they do not think a certain way or place is appropriate for a parade, or that the time is not right. They will not stop the parade from going ahead but, if it subsequently happens that damage is caused, then the organisers of the parade, whoever they happen to be, can be prosecuted as being responsible for causing the disturbance.

Supposing some of the bright boys who have appeared in a number of parades in the city and who are uncontrollable brats who like causing trouble, and who have no responsibility to anybody except their own small group, get into a peaceful parade and then break windows and attack the gardaí, does the Minister consider it fair that the organisers of that meeting should be held responsible and could be prosecuted? I should like to have the Minister's comment on that. It appears from the Bill as it stands that that can be done.

Last night, Deputy Dillon referred to this question of the organised cry of police brutality. Let me, from my own experience of the Garda authorities in this country, say that I do not think it is right that people should make a cry about being brutally treated. On occasion it has been brought to my notice after a parade of a certain kind which did result in a row with the police, engineered in most cases by somebody who wanted fun, that somebody had got a cut head or more serious injuries. We are all human, and the gardaí are human, and if a group of people taunt and attack them in certain ways and they retaliate is it not to be expected that there would be certain inquiries? If one does not want to get a cut head when a parade of that kind is on and police are being attacked he should not be present. If not present, he cannot get a cut head. That surely is a reasonable approach to it.

Deputy Dillon, in my opinion, was wrong last night when he suggested that the incidents that occurred in Dublin and Derry were similar. Maybe he did not mean that. His remarks suggested to me that that was what he meant; that the police on both sides were being provoked. There is a big difference in what happens here in a democratic State and what happens in the Six Counties which, in my opinion, is not a democratic State. The reaction of the police in such cases in Northern Ireland under certain orders appears to be different from the reaction in Dublin. For that reason, I believe that the section of the Bill dealing with parades has got to be further amended, that the Minister's amendment will not cover the point. However, there should be under existing law authority for the police to single out the people they know and can see are causing trouble so that they can take them to court and deal adequately with them.

I would suggest also that to impose a fine of £5 on somebody whose father may have an income of £500,000 a year for creating a disturbance is not the same as fining some poor fellow who has not a light on his car and who perhaps has not got £5. This is one of the things that are continually causing trouble. The big trouble about it is that even jail sentences are not as big a punishment as an adequate fine for causing damage. I may be sticking my neck out here but I am all in favour of law and order. I will say that so long as we have in this city or anywhere else in this country people who give the impression that they are very much in favour of doing things in a wild way and who, when it suits themselves, switch round and say that that is not right.

I was watching an example of this recently. I happened to be at home and we are lucky or unlucky enough to get three or four stations on television there. I switched on UTV and found a gentleman from the south telling the people from the north how lucky they were and that they would have to come south to find out what civil rights were. He was using foreign TV to decry the situation in this country. When this is followed up by irresponsible little brats pointing out that when they have the civil rights in the north they are coming to the south to see what the gardaí will do. When they can find that type of thing coming on the air on our own station people should begin to think and should realise that people in certain positions have certain responsibilities.

This House has a responsibility and this House is standing up to and carrying out that responsibility. We have the other type, the people who feel that because they carry the badge of student they are entitled to do any damn thing they like and to get away with it. It should not be allowed to continue. As far as the general body of students are concerned, they are decent, respectable, hardworking young persons and nobody decries what the few "head cases" are doing as much as the general body of students.

We have in our universities here what is sometimes described as a hard core, mostly a few students who are not natives of this country. Occasionally we see these people going around, infiltrating various organisations including the various political Parties, and trying to stir up a bit of trouble. Some of them are still students at the age of 36 or 37 years. Some of them I know to be the sons and daughters of wealthy people who are waiting for their parents to pass on until they, too, become wealthy capitalists. They are enjoying Dublin life and enjoying telling people of the terrible injury being done to them because of the system obtaining in this country. A special watch should be kept on the activities of these people. There is no reason why they should be allowed to give a bad name to a student body which in the main is composed of decent, respectable young people.

I wish to refer to a few matters which the Minister may possibly have overlooked. One of them was referred to by Deputy L'Estrange a few minutes ago—the lack of uniformity in the matter of penalties. In one court a judge may impose a fine of 10/-whereas in another court for a similar offence the person might be sent to jail for two months. There is something wrong here. I submit that the amount of the fine should relate to the means of the person being fined. Ten shillings or £2 or £5 does not represent nearly as much hardship on one person as it would on another who might be existing on a weekly wage of only double that amount.

There has been reference to the question of arrest. Though most of what is suggested in this respect seems to be reasonable—I may be on my own on this—I should like to refer in particular to the question of fingerprinting. I do not see why everybody in the country should not, at some time, have their fingerprints taken and registered if only because it might save a lot of public time eventually. The suggestion that fingerprints be destroyed after a time if they are not needed is cod. For instance, when a big crime hunt is in progress, the gardaí have to go to the terrible trouble of fingerprinting numbers of people. I suggest that in the same way as names and addresses are registered, so should fingerprints be registered. Some purists may say this would have certain ill-effects, that there is some theoretical ethical objection to it. I do not know whether there is or not but I insist that this is something which should be dealt with in a reasonable way.

There is reference to the powers of arrest which the Garda are being given. In my opinion, the gardaí exercise their powers reasonably. However, one thing which annoys people endlessly and perhaps with reason is that when driving around at night sometimes they are stopped and their names and addresses taken and they are asked where they have come from and where they are going, apparently just to pass the time. If gardaí decide that a charge may be brought against somebody, they should make that charge and this matter should be completely covered by the law but, if there is no question of a charge, people should not be embarrassed unreasonably in this way. It is only a small point but it is one which should be covered carefully.

The Minister has told us that he intends to amend sections 30 and 31. When the Bill was introduced, I considered that these sections were deliberately pointed at certain organisations such as the NFA and the tenant associations. Meetings of such organisations need not necessarily be held outdoors: there could be indoor meetings as well and obviously they would be covered by this legislation. Perhaps that was not the idea at all but it appeared to me that was what was envisaged. I suggest the Minister made a mistake when he included penal clauses in respect of people who withhold rents or rates.

After all, there is a civil law which deals with this sort of thing and one thing which can cause trouble is that people are made to feel that repressive legislation is being aimed at them, particularly people living in the country who may be tenants of council cottages. Such a person may say his cottage is in bad repair, that he had asked the council to have it repaired again and again, that the council had not done anything about it and that unless they repair the cottage he will not pay the rent. This attitude does not do the tenants any good because it is usually easier to get a council to do repairs if the rent has been paid up to date. If tenants refuse to pay, the local authority can put them out on the road, family or not, without assigning any reasons.

When you come up against big groups of tenants like those in Ballymun or others among Dublin Corporation householders, it is a different matter when a number of tenants decide that they have a genuine grievance. Instead of writing into legislation repressive measures against such people, which would result in putting them into jail for refusing to pay their rents because they consider they have a genuine reason for not doing so, it would be much better if arrangements could be made to have much more dialogue between the people representing the owners of the houses and the tenants.

I have been a trade union official during the past 22 years and I have yet to meet a person who, if you talk reasonably to him, does not appreciate the fact that there are two sides to every problem. Most reasonable people can be persuaded that perhaps their grievance is not as bad as they thought it was. If it is, the authority concerned should have it rectified. Such a system of dealing with grievances would be much better than what is suggested in the Bill.

There will be numerous amendments for Committee Stage proposed by the Minister, Fine Gael and Labour. It would be wasting the time of the House at this stage to go into the many points which will be discussed in Committee and therefore I do not intend to delay the House any longer.

I should like to say, however, that the Bill now before the House is one which we on these benches could not vote for. It was suggested by several Deputies that the Minister might have taken the action, for which there is precedent, of withdrawing the Bill which has been hanging around for two years, and later perhaps could have introduced his own Bill. Then he would have been able to say: "This is my Bill. I am satisfied it is right". He cannot say that about this Bill because it is not his Bill. Had he done what I have suggested, he might have got a better reception here. For that reason, after this Stage of the Bill has been considered, the Minister might before Committee Stage decide to withdraw it, later introducing a more comprehensive measure to deal with the various matters in a more reasonable way.

Last night Deputy Dillon suggested that there should be two Bills, one for repeal and one for the general law. I do not think that is a good idea because the repeal Bill would mean very little to most people here. Might I suggest to the Department of Justice that when an Act is being repealed, while it would involve a little trouble, they should include a short note stating what the Act being repealed refers to, and particularly when a section is left out of an Act which is being repealed. Such a note, stating exactly what is being done, would help many of us who might not have the foggiest idea as to what was being repealed. While it would mean an increase in the size of the Bill it would nevertheless help the discussion very much. There may be points in the Acts which are being repealed which we might consider to be good points but which the draftsman might not so consider. It would be in the interests of having legislation which would be to the best advantage of the country.

Mr. O'Malley

In common with many people I had some reservations about this Bill before I heard the Minister's Second Reading speech last week. Through an unfortunate chain of circumstances this Bill was published a long time before it was debated in the House. In the interval between the publication of the Bill and its Second Reading, nine months later, a great many people, for one purpose or another, put interpretations on various proposals in the Bill which in fact had no basis at all. It was only when we heard the Minister last week that we realised clearly that all these allegations about the Bill had no substance whatever. It is noticeable that the opposition to the Bill in the public press and in this House has quietened very much since the Minister made his comprehensive and very helpful speech about it last week.

In common with many Deputies I am glad that he proposes to amend sections 30 and 31, not so much because I felt that the sections were in any way unfair or improper as originally drafted, but because I felt they would be unenforceable in any court. What he now proposes is fair, reasonable and is enforceable because while it is not putting an absolute duty on organisers of meetings to consult with the Garda it is putting a civic duty on them to do so and to some extent it is asking them to do so and to some extent it is asking them to bear the consequences of their failure to do so if trouble is caused at meetings about which they failed to inform the Garda in advance. Deputy Tully mentioned something which can very easily happen, where a meeting is bona fide organised by people who do not want any trouble but some outsiders come in to cause trouble. The Minister's proposed amendment will cover that instance because it would not be fair or proper to prosecute the organisers of a bona fide meeting where an outsider——

Unfortunately it does not appear that the amendment will cover this point. I may be wrong but it appears that they should be the people held responsible rather than the general body.

Mr. O'Malley

My reading of the speech was that the organisers would not be held responsible where disruptive elements came into a meeting. However, I am sure the Minister can make that clear because I am sure that it would not be the Minister's intention and that it would not be the wish of anybody to impose criminal liability on the organisers for trouble caused by somebody coming in.

My amendment will cover the point made by Deputy Tully.

Mr. O'Malley

I am very glad to hear that. There has been a lot of talk both inside and outside the House regarding certain provisions which allegedly give rise to offence, or did so before the Minister spoke. I want to say something about certain provisions that are not in the Bill and which I think should be in a Bill of this nature. The Bill does tremendous work in bringing an outmoded criminal system up to date and in getting rid of such things as penal servitude, hard labour, misdemeanours and all the rest. However, two things come to my mind about our criminal and penal system at present which are at least as outmoded as penal servitude, felonies and misdemeanours—and I would urge the Minister to take the opportunity in this Bill to abolish them—and they are capital and corporal punishment. Both of these medieval forms of punishment remain on the Statute Book but neither of them has been used for a great many years. That of itself is sufficient reason for taking them off the Statute Book because that is the principal reason why penal servitude and all the other things I mentioned which had not been used are being taken off.

While the circumstances in which capital punishment can be imposed have been greatly reduced in recent years it is still there for certain forms of murder and treason. I would urge the Minister in this day and age that it is no longer right or proper that under any guise a man should deliberately and coldly take the life of another man whatever that other man may have done. I sympathise with the Minister if he felt that the death penalty should be retained for treason but I am not certain that treason in the strict legal sense was ever committed here and I could not see it being committed except in times of war when special legislation would have to be brought in anyway. If the death penalty was considered necessary then for certain political forms of murder it could be introduced in the special legislation that would be brought in to cover a war time situation. In peace time, however, and for any form of murder, I cannot see the justification for retaining on our Statute Book this barbarous and medieval form of retribution whereby one man takes the life of another man, whereby we try to establish the principle that one wrong justifies another wrong.

I can see no grounds for it and in practice nobody has been executed in this country since 1953, sixteen years ago, and it is very difficult to envisage anybody being executed outside of wartime or a national emergency. For that reason I would urge the Minister to consider removing this very distasteful part of our penal system from the Statute Book.

Much the same remarks apply to corporal punishment which has not been used for many years, perhaps 30 or 40 years. I am not at all sure that the facilities, if that is the word, exist for the imposition of corporal punishment but certainly it is something that is barbarous in the extreme, that is of no use whatsoever from a reformative point of view or, indeed, from any other point of view. Any court will tell you that it is only stultifying itself if it tries to impose some punishment or make some order which it cannot, in fact, enforce. That stultification applies, I think, to any intent on the part of the court to impose capital or corporal punishment because I cannot see either being carried out in this country. The argument is put forward that capital punishment keeps down the murder rate. In recent years here we have proved that that is not so. That has also been proved in other countries in which capital punishment has been abolished. Similarly, where corporal punishment is concerned, there is a certain mentality which holds such punishment should be imposed in retaliation for crimes of violence and so on. I cannot think of anything less calculated to prevent crimes of violence and one reduces oneself to a very low level, I think, if one can meet violence only with violence.

An opportunity might be taken—it cannot be taken in this Bill, but I hope it will be taken in another Bill shortly —to reform and bring up to date our penal system generally. The reformative element in our penal code is very slight indeed. Perhaps through lack of money, perhaps through lack of pressure, very little effort has been made over the past 40 or 50 years to introduce a modern scientific approach to the rehabilitation of persons sent to jail. We are a long way behind other countries in this. It is something to which we should begin to address ourselves very seriously.

There are a number of sections upon which I should like briefly to make some comment. One is section 24 dealing with proof by written statement. From subsection (2) (c) it appears that a written statement can be handed to the defendant at any time up to or during the hearing and it can, apparently, only be excluded then by a notice, presumably in writing, served by him or his legal adviser. I am not so worried where the defendant is represented because it will then be up to his solicitor or counsel to ensure that everything is done properly, but I am concerned about the fairly sizeable number of people of no very high intelligence, who are not represented by solicitor or counsel, and I cannot see them availing of their right to keep out a statement against them unless some greater safeguard is written into this section.

Section 25, under which the question of proof by formal admission arises, recognises the difficulty to which I have referred and provides that an admission generally cannot be accepted where the defendant is not represented by solicitor or counsel or, if he himself makes an admission, his solicitor or counsel can withdraw it. That is perfectly right and proper and I wonder if the Minister would consider inserting a similar provision in section 24 so that a defendant may not find himself in the position of having admitted evidence, and subsequently disputing it, being unable to cross examine the witness who gave the evidence.

I notice, too, that subsection (2) (a) of section 24 provides:

the statement purports to be signed by the person who made it

as one of the conditions. I do not know why the word "purports" should be used there. It seems to me the statement should be signed—undoubtedly it should be signed—and I cannot see any reason why it should not be signed before a peace commissioner or a commissioner for oaths. From the point of view of the defendant this written statement under section 24 could be just as damning as any sworn evidence. For that reason I think the Minister might consider an amendment providing that such a statement must be taken before a commissioner for oaths or a peace commissioner.

Under subsection (8) the penalties for making a false statement should be the same as those for committing the crime of perjury because, in the last resort, it amounts to the same thing as far as the defendant is concerned.

With regard to Part VII, my initial reaction was rather unfavourable but, having heard the Minister, and realising as a result of what he said that the number of cases in which this would arise would be very small indeed, I am satisfied that it is a useful part of the Bill and quite in order in every way. It does, however, make a considerable number of provisions for legal aid with regard to these proposed appeals by the Attorney General. Since the legal aid system was introduced some four or five years ago it has not, unfortunately, worked very satisfactorily. A great many people who should be entitled to legal aid have, in fact, been unable to get it because the provisions are so rigidly interpreted by some justices and judges. Legal aid has been refused to people in circumstances in which it was never intended by this House it should be refused. That refusal has put these people in a very difficult position. I notice that last year only about half of the money provided in the Vote for legal aid was, in fact, utilised. The scheme has not been used as it should be used.

I urge the Minister to extend legal aid to cover a wider range and a greater number of people. Such a provision should ensure that legal aid will not be so narrowly construed by so many courts. I would also urge the Minister to increase the fees payable. A great number of people have lost a good deal of money by offering their services on the legal aid panel. The fees payable have acted as a discouragement to counsel and solicitors and kept them from going on the panel. One of the results of that could be that a person entitled to legal aid may not get as good service as he would get if more reasonable fees were paid.

With regard to section 43 and the question of majority verdicts of juries, I wonder if the Minister might possibly reconsider this matter. He made a very strong case for it, indeed, in his speech last week, a case it would not be easy to refute even if I wanted to refute it. At the same time, if two members of the jury, one-sixth of the jury, say a man is not guilty there will always be a nagging doubt in people's minds as to whether he was guilty or not.

I know they brought in this provision in England recently. Deputy Dillon explained to us last night at length why that was done. I agree it was a very necessary provision in England for those reasons, but I think the Minister will agree that we have not the same necessity here at all. The Minister was mainly concerned here with possible efforts by illegal organisations to interfere with individual members of juries. Thank God, over the past good number of years, in fact, there have not been any great number of prosecutions before juries of members of illegal organisations for crimes of a violent or political nature.

For that reason it is hard to see how the necessity exists at present for a provision to counter something that has not existed for some time past. It is, of course, quite possible that it could arise suddenly some time in the future, but I would suggest to the Minister that if that happened, he might consider reestablishing the special courts which were established during the war to deal with that sort of situation. I have doubts myself as to whether it is right to put an ordinary criminal defendant at perhaps a certain higher degree of risk simply because there are illegal organisations of a violent and political nature in this country whose existence would warrant the inclusion of such a section.

We are in the very fortunate position that the rate of detection of crimes by the Garda is exceptionally high. I think it is in the region of 70 per cent—one of the highest in the world. Having detected the crimes the rate of convictions is also extremely high. The number of acquittals by juries of persons who are in fact guilty must be very small. Apart from the section in the Road Traffic Act, 1961, where the offence of dangerous driving causing death or serious bodily harm was created, I do not think juries have been slow to do their duty. I know that they have been frequently slow to convict a man who was perhaps guilty of dangerous driving under that section but have tended to convict of careless driving. The majority of jurors are motor car drivers and they see themselves, but for the grace of God, in the position of the defendant in the dock before them, and they are not anxious to fall over themselves in treating him too harshly. Apart from that instance I do not think there is any trend by juries in this country to fall down on their responsibilities.

I wonder would the Minister consider some amendment of section 43. One thing springs to my mind. I would go all the way with the Minister if he reversed section 43. There are many instances where an overwhelming majority of the jury want to convict and one or two jurors, for obstinate and even personal reasons, will hold out and the foreman has to report that they failed to agree, which means that the unfortunate defendant whom the vast majority of the jury want to acquit, is put to the worry and expense and trouble of a re-trial and he might possibly be kept in custody pending his re-trial.

In a great many cases where the first jury has disagreed only because one or two obstinate people held out, on the re-trial there is an immediate verdict of not guilty. A great deal of public money is wasted in the re-trial of people in those circumstances. I wonder, therefore, if the Minister would consider reversing the section to allow a majority verdict of ten to two for acquittal to stand rather than be recorded as disagreement.

When I read section 45 first I was rather amazed; I could not quite see the necessity for it but I heard the Minister's explanation last week of the necessity for it and I accept that. It shows great foresight on his part but, at the same time, while I entirely accept what he says in regard to the circumstances in which it would be used, the Minister will appreciate that what he says here in the House is in no way binding on any of his successors and a bad-minded Minister for Justice at some time in the future could use that section if it were passed in the exact terms in which it now stands for perhaps improper purposes.

It is not open to the courts when considering the terms of a section and the intentions behind it, to read the debates of this House, or to read what the Minister or the House had in mind. The courts can only interpret the words of the section as it stands in the Act. The terms of section 45 as they stand, would allow a Minister to abuse the powers given to him in that section. When we are legislating on a matter of importance like this we have to think of 20, 30 or 40 years hence just as much as we have to think of today. The Minister might consider the insertion in section 45 of some further safeguards in addition to the limited safeguard there is in subsection (3).

With regard to section 49 I am glad to see that provision is being made whereby a criminal court can order the payment of compensation by an accused person to an injured party. I wonder if a limit of £100 which is proposed in the section is in fact sufficient in today's terms. Under the Road Traffic Act, 1961, the courts dealing with criminal matters have more or less unlimited jurisdiction to make an order against a defendant who steals a car or damages it or creates some other similar offence. Often that runs to as much as £1,000. Unfortunately, frequently there are instances of people being injured by knives or in brutal attacks where they are seriously injured or disfigured for life. In theory those people have a civil action open to them but you will very quickly find that there is not much use in taking a civil action against people who go around with knives because invariably they are in no way a good mark for damages. The only hope an unfortunate innocent victim of an attack such as that has is if the court dealing with the criminal aspect of the matter has jurisdiction to force the accused to make a fairly substantial payment to the injured party.

This country and England have always retained a very sharp dividing line between criminal and civil jurisdiction. On the Continent there is no such dividing line and very frequently in matters of assault and suchlike the civil and criminal aspects of the case are heard together and that gives the judge hearing the case much greater leeway to make an order not just punishing the accused but also reimbursing in some way the injured party. I wonder if for these reasons the Minister would consider extending upwards very considerably the limit of £100 which is proposed in section 49.

With regard to section 54, there has been some criticism of the question of disqualification from grants from public money. It would be a ludicrous situation if we were to have people going around organising the defraud of the Revenue Commissioners while at the same time these people expected to benefit from public funds contributed by others who have properly paid their taxes. I am very glad to see this section in the Bill. In fact, one would wonder why it was not proposed many years ago.

This is a very lengthy Bill and unfortunately we tend to pick out only the bits and pieces where we think improvements or change might be made. The fact that only bits and pieces are picked out here and there is indicative of the fact that the vast bulk of the Bill is very necessary. It is a very praiseworthy Bill and one which I hope will go through the House very rapidly in view of the need there is for it in this country at the moment.

This Bill deals with two extremes. It deals with the old anomalies and with the anachronisms under which such things as for instance, the stealing of a penny is a felony which is a very serious crime, whereas the fraudulent conversion of any amount of money is regarded as a misdemeanour, which is a much less serious crime. I am glad to see that the Bill is getting rid of these old-fashioned and outdated distinctions between these types of crime.

At the other end, the Bill deals with the modern problems with which we have to contend in this country—the feeling of unrest and disruption which is whipping the country. There have been excesses in the streets of many of our cities in that regard but it is important that excesses by disruptive and one could almost say illegal bodies should not be met by excessive legislation on the part of the House, by the legally set-up Government of this country. I believe that it is important that we realise that legislation for right thinking cannot be introduced. We cannot compel parents to bring up their children to meet the type of excesses which we have experienced in recent years and we cannot legislate for proper thinking among the people generally. All we can do is to express the hope that the ordinary men and women of this country will be proud, prudent and courageous as their forebears were in the face of tyranny. There is no doubt but that an attempt at domestic tyranny is being promoted, largely from outside the country, at the present time.

There is intimidation by demonstrators in this country in the hope that the people will believe that they are larger and more representative than they are. They spread this horrible class differentiation. A few days ago I read in a document published by an organisation called Saoire Éire of this horrible class differentiation which, of course, is practically non-existent any more in this country.

Deputy Tully said earlier that we change Government here by the ballot box and not by demonstration on the streets. That is largely true. In my constituency of Cork an organisation who offered themselves at the last local elections for preference in the ballot box were very wisely rejected by the electorate of Cork. During the last three weeks this organisation has taken over control of the council chamber of Cork Corporation and they set up what they call the Cork Provisional Council until they were thrown out by the gardaí. On the following day some of them appeared in court and one of these young gentlemen informed the court that shortly they would have not alone a Cork people's council—I believe this was founded the night before—but they would have people's courts and these people's courts would bring before them the members of Cork Corporation.

This is the sort of thinking that is going on among some elements in this country—thinking that is completely foreign to the average decent Irish man and woman. We must remember that where communism thrives in many East European countries, it did not thrive because the majority of the people wanted it but simply because there was a small vocal and relentless hard core of communists who succeeded in intimidating the rest of the community.

I do not wish to deal at length with these matters at the moment but I think it is important that the ordinary man and woman will take a firm stand on these things. One night recently there was an orgy of breaking of windows and overturning of litter bins in the streets of Cork by young people. It transpired at the trial of some of those who were involved in these activities that one of the ringleaders was a secondary teacher and the same secondary teacher was teaching an infants class in a convent school. To me it seems appalling that a person of this outlook could be given access to the minds of young Irish children in a convent school, children going to school to be instructed. I ask myself where does the responsibility lie. Dáil Éireann could do nothing about that. But what about the community of nuns who employed this man who indulges in this sort of conduct, who goes out in the streets of Cork to encourage young boys and girls to overturn bins and break windows? Will they have the courage and the sense of responsibility to say: "This is not the sort of person we should employ." And if the reverend mothers have not that courage, will the parents of the children have the courage to go to the nuns to protest and say they do not want their children taught by people like that? We should not dismiss lightly from our minds the threat that is posed to us by modern conditions. We should not dismiss the efforts of communist elements to disrupt our Christian way of life.

Deputy Tully spoke rightly and fairly when he said that the vast majority of the student body was a fine body. I agree with him completely, but what I deprecate is that we have in the student body again the same hard core of disruptive forces—young men and young women for whom you and I and the other taxpayers in this country are contributing so that they can be educated—spending their time, instead of educating themselves, in holding demonstrations and creating disruption in the name of the entire student body.

What I am sorry about is that the decent element, the 94 per cent to 97 per cent of students who do not approve of this do not make their voices heard, except on very rare occasions, to say they do not associate themselves with this type of thing, that the vast majority of the student body in Ireland are decent law-abiding Christian young men and women who wish to go through the university process and emerge as useful citizens. Since Deputy Tully has mentioned the student body, let me say that one of the greatest disruptive forces in modern student life in Europe at the moment is a guest of one of Deputy Tully's fellow members of the Labour Party. I do not draw it so much to the attention of Deputy Tully, who, I am quite sure, is aware of it all, as to the attention of the Irish people.

We do not make it a condition that we "vet" the house guests of members. That is a private matter for any individual.

I am just mentioning it, and I am glad to see that Deputy Tully notices what is happening. What significance he attaches to it I know not, but I am entitled to attach such significance to it as I think fit, and the Irish people are entitled to attach significance to the fact that one of the newest and most outstanding additions to the Labour Party is at the moment harbouring this destructive young gentleman in his house near Dublin. That is all I said, and if Deputy Tully objects to it I should be glad to know the reason for it.

I object to the Deputy trying to hold the Labour Party responsible for a personal matter affecting an ordinary member.

From the reception this particular member got I would not say that he was looked upon as an ordinary member but as an extraordinary accretion of power and position to the Party to which Deputy Tully belongs. I only mentioned that in passing; I thought it was no harm. I am glad it is appreciated by Deputy Tully and, I hope, by the other members of the Irish Labour Party.

I do not intend to deal at any great length with the Bill itself. This can be left over to a later Stage, but I would say it is a wonderful day for Irish democracy when the Minister realises that he was on the brink of engaging in excesses of which the Irish people did not approve. When at his own Ard Fheis he was assailed about some of the proposals contained in this Bill, before even one shot was fired from any side, the Minister agreed to amend some parts of the Bill which were plainly obnoxious. I will say, however, in relation to sections 30 and 31 that some of the allegations that were made in regard to them by some elements in this country were completely exaggerated. That does not detract from the fact that much of the criticism that was levelled at these portions of the Bill was legitimate and showed that the majority of the Irish people did not need them. I do not want to deal with these sections now because the Minister indicates that he intends to alter them. Let me say, however, that I agree completely with Deputy Michael O'Higgins when he says that an entirely new Bill should be brought before the House and that the manner in which the Minister intends to deal with it is not the best. The Minister did indicate here last week that he would send out a short memorandum giving an indication of how he intended to amend the Bill. I am sorry he did not do that, because we might have been able to deal with it.

Before I forget it, I should like to say to the Minister that we on this side of the House subscribe to the view expressed by him and other Members of his Party that there is much unwarranted criticism of the Garda nowadays. If a garda tries to protect the ordinary citizens, the first cry that is raised is that of "Garda brutality". When the Belgian Royal Family came to Trinity College there was this dreadful allegation. I put down a question to the Minister asking what was the toll as a result of this "Garda brutality" and the Minister's answer showed that nobody had been seriously injured as a result of this dreadful "Garda brutality" about which young men from Trinity College shouted and screamed and got a fair amount of publicity through the press, radio and television over a long period.

The Garda are being very unfairly criticised in that regard. We should issue a small word of warning to the public not to believe all they see. I should like to relate something that happened in the streets of Cork city in the last fortnight where there was an outbreak of minor violence. A lady was standing talking to a friend of hers when two gardaí passed by and asked two young men to move along. The two young men moved along and when the gardaí had gone about fifty yards one of these young men threw himself on the ground and rolled around in dreadful agony. Somebody asked him what happened and he said he was kicked in the stomach by the gardaí. A very praiseworthy lady went over to him and poked him with her umbrella and said "Get up out of that or I will give you a real one." She explained that the gardaí had not laid a finger on this young man. This is behind many of the allegations of police brutality which are levelled at this excellent force looking after law and order on our behalf.

The points I would like to make are probably more suitable to later stages of the Bill. I would like to refer to section 6 (2) (b) which says:

Where—

any other person who, knowing or believing that the offender has committed the offence or some other offence (being an offence to which there attaches a penalty of five years' imprisonment or a more severe penalty), does, without reasonable excuse (the onus of proving which shall lie on such other person), any act with intent to impede the offender's apprehension or prosecution,

such other person shall be guilty of an offence.

I do not think we should meddle at all with the onus of proof as it is established at the moment. This House has done so to excess in the Fishery Acts where the person is deemed to be guilty of unlawfully catching the fish which is in the boot of his car unless he can prove he got it by legal means. We have gone too far on that already. I do not think this House should try to make further inroads on the freedom of a person. Section 12(4) reads:

A member of the Garda Síochána may arrest a person without warrant where—

(a) he is satisfied that the person has committed an offence involving a breach of the peace or has engaged in conduct that was likely to lead to the commission of such an offence.

(b) he has reasonable grounds for believing that the person is likely to engage in further conduct whereby the commission of an offence involving a serious breach of the peace may occur, and

(c) it is not reasonably practicable to apply for a warrant.

I think Deputy M.J. O'Higgins made the point last night but I do not want to let it go by default. It is unfair that the section should be so broadly phrased. What is meant is that, if the gardaí are satisfied the person has committed an offence involving a breach of the peace or has engaged in conduct likely to lead to the commission of such an offence, the gardaí can come to him now and deal with him in the manner envisaged in this. The House should not let this section pass as it stands. I would ask the Minister to glance at section 12 generally to tighten up the various aspects of it to which his attention has already been directed.

When Deputy O'Higgins was speaking he referred the Minister to certain aspects of section 28. Section 28 (1) (c) reads:

Any—

demonstration in a public place by one person or by two or more persons,

which is—

(i) at or within one-half of a mile from any building in which a House of the Oireachtas is sitting,

Deputy O'Higgins pointed out that this could refer to people who quite lawfully or peacefully come along to say that they do not like certain aspects of legislation which is to be passed. The Minister rightly assures Deputy O'Higgins that that was not his intention. The Minister knows as well as I do that irrespective of what a Minister's intentions might be if this Act, or any other Act, passes into law nobody can advert to the intention of the Legislature, where the Act is plain and unequivocal. Apart from what was his intention, the Minister should make plain in the Act what the effect of section 28 is. An expression of intention is not enough.

I could not speak strongly enough against sections 36 and 37, which deal with the question of double trials. A person already acquitted by the courts can at the motion of the Attorney General be again arraigned by the courts. Section 36 says:

Where—

(a) the Court of Criminal Appeal makes, in relation to a person who has been convicted of an offence, an order resulting in his discharge (including a case in which that Court remits a sentence), and

(b) the Attorney General certifies that the decision involves a point of law of exceptional public importance and that it is desirable in the public interest that an appeal should be taken to the Supreme Court,

That outrages all a lawyer's sense of finality of the decision of such courts. If on such an occasion the Attorney General does believe that the decision involves a point of law of exceptional public importance I do not think that the House would have an objection if the Minister should change the Act so that the Attorney General may refer the particular point of law for the opinion of the Supreme Court without prejudice to the right of the person involved to abide by the earlier decision of the Court of Criminal Appeal. In that way the Attorney General's anxiety to have the law clarified would be gratified. The right of the individual to abide by the decision of the Court of Criminal Appeal would not be interfered with. Similarly, section 37 reads:

(1) Where, on a question of law, a verdict in favour of an accused person is found by direction of the trial judge, the Attorney General may refer the question of law to the Supreme Court for determination.

Again, this person who has been acquitted by the jury on the direction of the trial judge is put once more in jeopardy before the Supreme Court. This is unfair. I have known many cases of direction being given by a trial judge to juries on points of law and the accused went free, but the State learned by trial and error. There was an occasion when a person was acquitted of manslaughter when the State forgot to prove there was any body on that occasion. The State learned rapidly by its mistakes. No competent prosecutor would go into a trial in which the death of a person was involved without proving primarily that the person was dead and that the body in respect of which the trial was conducted was the body of the person involved. I remember another occasion on which a man was accused of embezzlement by a company and was acquitted because the State did not prove that the company existed. No competent prosecutor would go into a court since then without having this simple proof with him. In all the circumstances I think this section is unnecessary. If the Minister considers it so necessary to persist in it, would it not be possible for the Supreme Court to decide the question of law involved, again without prejudice to the right of the accused person to abide by the decision of the jury given on the direction of the circuit judge?

I am not sure that section 43, providing for a majority verdict, is a good or necessary thing in this country. The Minister indicated that much of this Bill has been taken from the seventh and ninth reports of the English Criminal Law Revision Committee. Probably, in the circumstances which exist in England at the moment, it is necessary that a majority decision of a jury should prevail because there is a sort of intimidation there which has not so far occurred here. My mind is slightly divided on this because what is happening in England now might later occur here. However, until the need for it becomes very plain, the Minister should hesitate to do away with our present system in that respect. Section 44 (1) (c) and (d) states:

(c) the prosecution state that they can remedy the insufficiency by tendering further evidence (whether by recalling a witness who has already given evidence or otherwise), and

(d) the judge considers that, in the interests of justice and having regard to all the circumstances of the case, it is reasonable to make the decision provided for by this subsection,

the judge may decide not to give the direction for acquittal and to permit the prosecution to reopen their case by tendering such evidence.

That is all very well, but if there was purely a temporary slip it would be fair enough for the judge to be able to say: "Go ahead and get the further evidence now and we will deal with it on that basis", but it is iniquitous to suggest, as is suggested here, that the State can go and manufacture further proofs and come back and complete their case. I am glad to see the Minister shaking his head but he should go further and express that intention very plainly in the section. Section 45 deals with military custody. Subsection (1) states:

Where the Minister is satisfied, with respect to a person undergoing a sentence of imprisonment, that the presence of the person in the prison is or is likely to be detrimental to the security of or to good order in the prison, he may, in writing,—

(a) certify that he is so satisfied, and

(b) direct the transfer of the person to military custody,

and thereupon the person shall be transferred for completion of his imprisonment to military custody.

These things might become necessary and the need for them might arise on occasions, but when the Minister is making such a revolutionary provision he should provide at least certain rights for the person involved to appeal to a judge of the High Court against the decision of the Minister.

It is all very well for the Minister to say in subsection (3):

Where a certificate and direction is given under subsection (1) of this section, a statement specifying the giving thereof and specifying the name, offence and sentence of the person concerned, shall be laid before each House of the Oireachtas as soon as may be.

The Oireachtas, however, can do nothing about it because whichever Minister it may be for the time being, he would have the backing of the majority of the House and the man would remain in military custody though he had not been given any opportunity to answer the question. There is another objectionable subsection in section 45. Subsection (4) states:

The Minister for Defence may make regulations in relation to the places and manner generally in which persons transferred under this section to military custody shall be kept in such custody.

This is a very important matter for the person in question. If we cherish freedom and the rights of the individual in this House, we will not give the Minister carte blanche to say that he can take a man from Mountjoy and shove him into any military camp he likes on conditions which will be directed through a Civil Service office and which will be laid before the Houses of the Oireachtas but very likely overlooked by the majority of Deputies and Senators. If the Minister intends to do this, let him insert in the Bill a section setting out plainly that, if a person is to be removed to military custody under another subsection, he will be kept in a certain place and in a certain manner, and this should be very clearly set out in the section so that each Deputy will be able to give not only his own views but those of his constituents, which views he can ask for in his constituency. I press emphatically on the Minister the necessity for stating plainly the manner in which persons are to be detained under the provisions of this section.

In regard to section 53, I am sure the Minister will again shake his head and say it is not his intention that what seems to be in the section should happen. It is no good having head shakes inserted in inverted commas in Acts. What we must have in an Act is the actual decision of Oireachtas Éireann that such and such a provision shall be enforced as the law of the land. Subsection (2) of this section states that a person who encourages or advocates the non-payment of certain moneys shall be guilty of an offence. I cannot say how often I have people coming to me to say "I will not pay any rates" or "I will not pay any income tax because this is all wrong and the only way you can teach these people is not to pay". I tell such people to go away and have sense, but they commit an offence under this section which states "encourages or advocates the nonpayment..." If I should say to somebody: "Do not pay your rates for another week and see what happens," I would be advocating non-payment. The section sets up an entirely new offence and I think the Minister, on second thoughts, will agree the section is much too loosely drafted. I ask him to have a second look at it.

(Dublin South-Central): At the outset I should like to welcome the Bill and to say that it is a pity it should have received such adverse publicity. It was circulated very early and many people interpreted wrongly many of its sections. I was delighted that it received much more responsible consideration during the debate in the House. In his speech this morning, Deputy Tully indicated he realises, as many others do, that there are several responsible sections which should have been on the Statute Book a long time ago.

For that reason, the Bill will be welcomed by the majority of the people. It contains many provisions which will make it possible for average, decent people to live in this city. I suggest that any objections to the Bill outside the House were voiced by sections of the people who are not unduly concerned with law and order. Particularly, the provision dealing with offensive weapons is highly desirable. We all know of the tragedy which happened in this city a short time ago. If this section had been in force at that time the tragedy might have been avoided. There are sections of the people, minority groups, who try to take the law unto themselves. They think that by being in possession of offensive weapons, such as flick knives, they can do what they wish in our society. I have no time for such groups. They are in the minority but they have been frightening large sections of decent people in this city and have been making the job of the gardaí very difficult. It is not generally realised how difficult it is to carry out the law here when people are afraid of encountering people in possession of these dangerous weapons.

This is a section that should be strictly enforced, and it should be brought home to these people that it will be enforced. It is difficult for business people to carry out their normal business when we have a small group in the community acting in this fashion. This section will help the police to carry out their duties because great difficulties are involved for policemen when they encounter people in possession of dangerous weapons. I am delighted that the Minister has brought in this provision which is one that should have been on our Statute Book a long time ago. In my opinion carrying a dangerous weapon is just as bad as carrying a gun. For that reason I welcome the provision.

A lot of criticism has been expressed about sections 30 and 31 and I am glad that the Minister intends to modify them with his amendments, which I think will be accepted by all. It was never the intention to deprive the community at large of freedom of speech or freedom of meeting. Freedom of speech is enshrined in our Constitution and it is something this House has always cherished and always protected Of course, when we have freedom of meeting and of speech we must also consider other sections of the community. It is right that people should have the opportunity to assemble and, if they have a grievance, they have a right to air it in public; but in doing so they must take the rest of the population into consideration. It is not right that the whole commercial life of a city should be disrupted because some section wants to hold a public meeting.

I have seen orderly meetings being held in this city. Recently, we saw a meeting of the nursing profession and it was an example of a peaceful public meeting. They brought their grievances to the public notice in a peaceful way. We all admire people who hold meetings like this. However, we have other sections who do not take the ordinary life of the city into consideration and who think they can disrupt the city because they feel they have a grievance. If they have a grievance, they should air it in proper fashion and ensure that other sections of the community are not inconvenienced. The Minister intends to modify this section and in doing so he will satisfy those people who were aggrieved by it.

Deputy Tully referred this morning to students and I must agree with him as far as a section of the students is concerned. In my constituency there are two universities and, by and large, the majority of students in those universities comprise a responsible section of the community. We may get a small section who feel that they should go out and protest. I have known these people, from all Parties, and have found them generally to be reasonable. But there are others who feel egged on by a social conscience to protest in public. I often wonder if they are led on by other groups or influenced by people who are not out in the front. At the time they are protesting I think they feel they are doing the right thing.

Many people have been protesting in this city over the past six or eight months and it seems to be the accepted thing to do. Protest meetings started in America, moved over to Europe and then on to Ireland. The publicity given to this type of protest meeting is completely out of proportion to what it merits. If you were to protest in O'Connell Street today you would get full coverage on the television and in the newspapers. If you have a normal peaceful protest it does not get the same publicity. Perhaps it is for that reason that these people take the view that the best way to bring home their views to the public is to protest in the fashion in which some people have been doing in the past. I hope that commonsense will prevail. These people must be made realise that they too must abide by law and order. If they have a grievance let them protest, but they have no right to inconvenience people who are going about their normal business.

I see that the Bill contains a provision relating to compensation for damage to property. Some people may feel that the courts today are a bit lenient in this respect. This is something that should not be discussed at the moment. Many people do not mind doing a short term of imprisonment, but if they had to pay compensation it might hurt them more. It might be a good thing if people found that when they were released from prison they still had to pay compensation for damage to property. I am not sure how the judge would decide on the compensation payable; he would have to take into consideration the means of the person. Payment of £20 or £30 compensation would mean very little to a man who has a lot of money but to make a similar order against a poor person might involve a lot of hardship.

Generally, this section is one to be welcomed. All the sections are desirable except the one which the Minister intends to modify by way of amendment. It has been noticeable that the Bill today did not receive the same criticisms as it has been receiving hitherto. The Minister delivered such a comprehensive Second Reading speech that it has removed a lot of the doubts from the minds of the people who thought that this was repressive legislation. This Bill does not contain any repressive legislation at all.

The Bill, as it stands, does.

(Dublin South-Central): I am taking the Minister's amendments into consideration. It will be agreed by all that this is a Bill which will help the community to live in a peaceful, normal fashion.

Irrespective of the exhaustive Second Reading speech of the Minister the apprehension of the public has not been entirely removed, because no matter how exhaustive a Second Reading speech may be, no matter how full of contrition and no matter how full of change of mind or intention it may be, the people must continue to be suspicious of the original intention, particularly when they examine the power of public opinion that brought about that change of intention. I agree with the view expressed last evening by Deputy Dillon when he said that, in so far as this was a codifying measure involving not alone codification but repeals, that particular portion should have come in one part and that any new provisions making for new law should have come in another part or in a separate Bill, because far too often in the course of legislation it happens that the good is often submerged by the bad and the publicity which necessarily attaches to the bad. On the other hand what is considered to be bad is often enlarged and exaggerated by reason of the fact that the good is not sufficiently highlighted equally exaggerated proper publicity and proper presentation.

Criminal justice, and justice in particular, is always a matter that must engage the public mind, the mind of the older people, of the middle aged and of the young. It must engage the minds of people who come together of necessity by way of meeting, whether indoor or outdoor, to put forward a certain point of view or to make a more vocal and virile protest. In all these matters, justice and its administration, and particularly the legislative proposals brought in to deal with its administration, must always engage the public mind and give rise to approbation with regard to that which is believed to be good and apprehension with regard to that which is believed to be bad. At very best, it must give rise to apprehension regarding the functions of those who seek to promote and implement provisions such as these.

This Bill has been on the stocks for a considerable time. It was, unfortunately, introduced at a time when unrest began in this country, unrest particularly in relation to the farming community, and it is not difficult, therefore, to understand the feelings of the farming organisations who believe that the provisions here, particularly those in sections 31 and 32 dealing with meetings and protests, are directed at them. I sympathise with them in that point of view. Indeed, I sympathise with all sections of our community, whether they be organised like the farmers as a vocational group or as a trade union, who are worried about certain provisions in this Bill. I sympathise with that large section still worried because, whether we like it or not, we do not yet know what kind of amendments the Minister proposes to bring in. The amendments were hinted at, and only hinted at, in his Second Reading speech. They were not very well defined; they were not very clearly expressed. Indeed, the original intention of ultimate and absolute suppression has not been entirely removed from people's minds as a result of that Second Reading speech.

The first fault I have to find with this Bill, as with many other Bills introduced here, is that it slavishly follows its counterpart which preceded it in Britain. Sometimes such legislation precedes similar legislation here by as much as ten years. Now the conditions in this country are not at all comparable to conditions in Britain when Britain was framing her legislation. Legislation here, which comes out of the legislative process in both Houses of the Oireachtas, should be designed and finally executed as legislation appropriate to the needs and conditions of our own people. Sections snaffled out of a British Act, sections applicable in large industrialised areas, are not applicable here. Sections of a British Act dealing with crime in Great Britain are not applicable here. Essentially, this Bill is, of course, a Committee Stage Bill in which each section will be dealt with in the most objective manner possible and in which due regard will be had to the working of our courts, our police force and the general reaction of our people, not disregarding overall conditions and needs.

Freedom, particularly in this country, is a very precious thing in the breast of every man and woman. Indeed, freedom is a very precious thing in any country in which democracy still operates. There are not too many of them left and I think it is essential, because of that, to do everything possible to ensure that that freedom we all love and we all desire to see exercised to the full will continue to operate in those democracies which are left. Had the original intention behind this Bill not been thwarted by the force of public opinion it is difficult to believe that the Government were really interested in the continuation of democracy as we know it. However, the Government have been halted somewhat in their tracks. The brakes will be applied with greater force in the course of the further consideration of this Bill, I hope, both in this House and in the Seanad.

I hope that every viewpoint will not alone be put forward by members of the Opposition but also by the backbenchers of the Fianna Fáil Party, who must be as conversant with affairs as we are and, if they are not, they should be. If they are conversant they have a duty to bring to the notice of their Ministers in Government what the public feel and what the public want. Putting it at its lowest, there is as great a duty on every backbencher in the Fianna Fáil Party to bring to the notice of the Minister for Justice the failings they see in this intended legislation as the duty placed on the shoulders of every individual who voiced public complaint about the Bill, and that includes their own rank and file supporters at the recent Ard Fheis of the Fianna Fáil Party. There was a great change of front there and a change of front on the part of the Minister for Justice in particular. Only a few days before the Ard Fheis he appeared, flanked by the Minister for Local Government, of whose love of the democratic process we are all aware and with which we are all conversant, and the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries; both of these have had very severe clashes with those members of the public to whom they are ultimately responsible—the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries with the farmers and the Minister for Local Government with the total electorate no later than last October. Speaking in Castlebar, where they were celebrating and honouring, or making an apologia for, the 30 years in public life of the Minister for Justice, who was Deputy Moran for over 20 years, and An Teachta Ó Moráin for the remaining ten years——

Continuous service.

Continuous bilingual service.

Unbroken service.

Not only free but Gaelic as well. It is only about a fortnight since the Minister for Local Government said there was nothing in the Criminal Justice Bill about which the Fianna Fáil Party could feel in the least ashamed. The Minister for Justice, talking to his own people, welcoming the new people into the new gerrymandered constituencies, and saying goodbye to the others who by reason of equal gerrymandering were leaving, said he was proud to be associated with this great measure.

Then those three "Assistant Taoiseachs" came back to Dublin and faced the rank and file of their own people in the Mansion House at the Fianna Fáil Ard-Fheis, where the Criminal Justice Bill we are now discussing came under very vigorous discussion, and everyone waited for the perspiring Minister for Justice that afternoon to see how far he would go in response to the expressed wishes of his own people from the floor of the Mansion House. Far from being unashamed of anything in the Criminal Justice Bill, he there and then promised that on Second Reading he would refer to the amendments he proposed to bring in in order to get rid of the offending sections.

That proves the democracy of the Fianna Fáil Party.

I am not so much concerned with the Fianna Fáil Party as with the rapid transition from being unashamed to being ashamed. This demonstrates the considerable and publicly-known lack of integrity of the Ministers of our present Government.

I have another objection to this type of Bill. This is the type of Bill which the promoters in the Department of Justice and the Minister who is ultimately responsible for its finality refer to bodies such as the Bar Council and the Incorporated Law Society for their views. They receive many other unsolicited views. Virtually all of those views are rejected. The reason for that is that the people in the Department have not got a full appreciation of how the administration of justice works in practice. They have had no practice and they do not understand.

Taking up a British Act and transferring sections on to green paper in this country is not the solution. They must have regard to the voices of experience. They must have regard to unsolicited protests which come from many parts of the country. No one expects infallibility from Government Departments and, indeed, much less is it expected from Ministers in charge of Departments. For that reason I think the original mistake that is made with regard to this kind of proposal is the adoption of an ex cathedra pose not only by the Minister for Justice but by every other Minister who seeks to bring in a Bill. They seem to think that to change a comma or accept a valid viewpoint means a loss of face, whereas its acceptance by a person even of the capacity of a Minister is a clear demonstration of his own bigness of mind, but that kind of bigness of mind is something to which in recent times we have become totally unaccustomed from the Government Front Bench.

As I said some time ago, freedom is something to be cherished. Little by little with each piece of legislation that goes through this House there is a whittling down, sometimes almost imperceptibly, of citizens' rights, of the rights which they enjoy, and no reason offered as to why they should be deprived of them even in the slightest part.

In this Bill there is power to arrest without warrant. Not only is that power given to members of the Garda but it is also given to persons who are not members of the Garda. There are powers to search persons, search premises and search vehicles, and powers in relation to the use of force in making an arrest. All those things are looked after perfectly well at present in this country. I feel bound to say—I have said it before in other places— that I, and I am certain the vast majority of our people, have absolute confidence in the impartial administration of the law by the Garda.

I have experience of the manner in which they handle accused persons. If there are any exceptions they are unknown to me; exceptions from a general course of conduct which savours of great charity, great courtesy, great kindness. In the exercise of those three great qualities there is never the slightest deviation from what they consider to be their path of duty. Anyone close to our police must recognise at once the twin qualities that operate: duty on the one hand and full understanding on the other. Why, therefore, is it necessary in our scheme of things at present to seek to give them greater powers, the exercise of which might well damage their image in the public mind, when that image is perfectly good?

Reference has been made in the course of this debate to the repeal of the Magna Carta. That was the original charter of freedom, the original defensive bulwark between the citizens and the Executive. On the Committee Stage and on matters in relation to the repeal I shall have something further to say but at the moment I suggest that it is important that the Minister and his advisers have another look at it lest there might be—and I fear there might be—a very dangerous gap left in the defensive protection of the citizen's freedom that exists at the moment.

Reference has been made to people who protest, to people who march and to people who gather to discuss matters of common concern. I firmly adhere to the view that every man and woman in this country, be they students or be they more mature people, have the right to meet, to march and to protest and if that right of meeting, marching and protesting were ever to be even limited, not to mind absolutely curtailed, a very grave blow would have been struck at the freedom which we enjoy and the freedom we must continue to cherish and uphold.

Everybody has the right to protest whether he be a student or a more mature person. All I would ask is that these marches, meetings and protests be conducted in as orderly a manner as possible and that the stewards or people in charge of such meetings, marches or protests would act in full co-operation with the police and that the police for their part would see that the marchers are protected if they are orderly and that they are restrained if they become disorderly.

That is the kind of attitude that the Minister for Justice should adopt through the police, through good public relations and through advisable propaganda so that each and every one will understand that not alone will they have the right to meet, to march and to protest but that in the pursuance of that they can be certain of the protection of the police who they, as taxpayers, are helping to maintain.

This Bill contains, as I said at the beginning, some good things and some very bad things. I, like Deputy Fitzpatrick of Dublin, welcome the provisions about the use of knives. Each and every one of us reads all too frequently in the issues of newspapers of some stabbing outrage. Some of these are not fatal, some are and some leave permanent grievous bodily harm. That sort of thing must be put down in our society. A knife, like poison, can be a surreptitious weapon, it can be a surreptitious means of bringing about the death or disablement of another and it can be surreptitiously used in a close fight. It is different from the poison or the gun or even the fist. One would have no chance if poison were used and a very remote chance if a gun were used.

I approve of that piece of legislation as it is contained in this Bill. It has always been realised as a fundamental principle of our law that a man is innocent until he is proved guilty and that the proof of his guilt can come only from the raison juste, that is from all the circumstances surrounding the particular act on which is based the charge that he has to face but in this Bill I see provisions that appal me as a legal practitioner and I am sure they would equally appal people who practise on the other side of the court, those acting on behalf of the people. These are the provisions dealing with proof by written statement, namely, sections 24 to 27 inclusive. As I have said already, I believe this is mainly a Committee Bill but, nevertheless, in a Second Reading speech, one must make some reference to them.

The provisions contained in sections 24 and 25 are arguable and no doubt will be argued vigorously from each side of the House. I regret that I must use the phrase "from each side of the House" because this is a Bill which obviously should be dealt with by all Members of the House, whether they be Members of the Government Party, Members of Fine Gael or Members of Labour. Each one of us is in duty bound in relation to a provision such as this to bring to the notice of the Minister and of the House and the public all of the value that must attach to his point of view having regard to his experience. The Minister for Justice himself is not without considerable experience of the courts of this country and I do not know how he can come in here and put forward a section like section 27 which deals with evidence of previous crimes or misconduct. I feel so strongly about this that I must read section 27 in full so that people will understand what this means:

(1) In a criminal proceeding, evidence shall be admissible notwithstanding that it tends to show that the accused person was guilty of crime or misconduct on an occasion other than that to which the proceeding relates if—

(a) the case is one in which it is relevant for the prosecution to show that the accused person had engaged in a system or course of criminal activity and the evidence tends to show that he had so engaged, or

(b) the evidence is evidence of the accused person's whereabouts or actions at a particular place or time or evidence that he had some particular knowledge or skill or a propensity to adopt or use a particular method of operation or to act in a particular way and, in any such case, the evidence tends to identify the accused person as the person who committed the crime to which the proceeding relates or to establish that an act or omission of his was criminal or to rebut a defence or explanation which has been or which may reasonably be expected to be put forward by him or which it is necessary for the court to consider.

(2) The court may exclude evidence which would be admissible by virtue of the foregoing subsection if that evidence is not reasonably necessary for the purpose for which it is sought to adduce it or if the court considers that the evidence would be likely to have a prejudicial effect disproportionate to its probative value.

In subsection (2) there is a little softening down, a slight return to the principles under which we operate at the present time, but subsection (1) cuts across the very principles of justice upon which our criminal code operates at this time. As an instance, let us take a man who was in his youth, or early manhood, a successful housebreaker with a special technique. His success became well known to the law and he was punished for it either by fines or terms of imprisonment. At a certain stage of his life, say 25 or 35, this man decides, and succeeds in his decision, to give up that way of life. He settles down, lives and works in a certain locality and supports a family. There is a housebreaking in the vicinity, or in an area which he could visit comfortably. The police know about this and they know all about this man; and they pounce on this man as a person likely to be involved in the commission of such a crime.

This now innocent man can be brought before the courts and charged with a crime even if there is no evidence to connect him with it, except his proximity to the scene of the crime or the possibility that he could do it in a certain time and that he was either not able or not willing, he being under no obligation, to give any explanation or account of his movements at that time. In the absence of evidence of his actual, or circumstantial, commission of that crime, evidence can then be given to a jury of his previous history.

This is not justice. This is not the kind of provision which would be sponsored by any reasonable practitioner. This might well be acceptable in the big cities of England where the crime rate is so high and where criminals can escape into the large whirling population. It is a matter for the British to decide what is good enough for them. It is a matter for us to decide what is not good enough for us here, and on the Committee Stage I shall certainly oppose section 27.

Would the Deputy say if that is the crime described as loitering with intent to commit a felony?

No. It is any criminal proceeding.

There was a crime "loitering with intent" under the old criminal code?

Yes. I should have informed the House there is one place I know where evidence of a previous course of conduct can be given, and that is where people are charged here under section 13 of our Debtors Act with obtaining goods and accommodation in a hotel by fraud or by false pretences other than fraud. Curiously enough, we can give evidence here in this country of a course of conduct, of having done so in other hotels prior to that, on the authority of English case law—a case dating back as far as 1904 which will be found in the Report of King and Wyatt, 1904, Second King's Bench. That is the only place I know of where you can have this evidence of a prior course of conduct. I think it is harsh and makes it extremely difficult for a man or woman, having made up their mind to go right, to continue to go right if they are to be perpetually under this fear and apprehension that their previous life and the previous systems they have adopted in the crimes they have now given up are to be brought into court and there laid against them as proof that they committed a crime which, in fact, they did not commit.

This section, as I understand it, is supposed to give effect to our existing law as laid down by the Supreme Court in the Kirwan case.

Not at all.

When the Committee Stage comes——

When the Committee Stage comes we shall go into it carefully. The Minister said the Kirwan case?

It is referred to in the Explanatory Memorandum, The Attorney General v. Kirwan, 1943.

It took a long time.

It was followed in a number of other cases.

Giving evidence of a person's previous conduct is always extremely dangerous, because the Minister knows well that any evidence tending to show that the person was charged or convicted previously is scrupulously kept out of the courts at the time of the investigation. That is an elementary principle which cannot and should not be violated.

There is a trace, also, in the Bill of the hand of the non-practitioner. I may be forgiven if, for a moment, I refer to the question of costs. Under the present practice in relation to operations under legal aid, which is not great and which, in fact, I think operates unjustly, where counsel and solicitors who have put their names on the legal aid panel, making their contribution from their professions and making themselves available for the defence of persons who could not otherwise afford it, on the one side you have experienced people operating on behalf of an accused paid on the legal aid scale and the people acting on behalf of the Attorney General representing the people are paid at least three times as much. The situation is not right and should be corrected in the shortest possible time.

Here in this Bill is something which makes us all suspicious of the non-practitioner, qualified but non-practising, behind the scenes. Up to the present time and until such time as this Bill becomes law, if it ever does, the people acting for the defence on legal aid go to the Court of Criminal Appeal and if successful there in having a conviction quashed and a new trial ordered they are then on a different scale of costs altogether. These costs are higher but not outrageously higher. In this Bill it is sought that where the practitioner operating in the court in the first instance on legal aid succeeds in the Court of Criminal Appeal, again on legal aid, and has a new trial ordered he must, according to the promoters of this Bill, continue for trial after trial in all succeeding courts also on legal aid while his counterparts for the prosecution enjoy the full fees payable by the State to the people who act for the State. It could be argued that once a person opted for legal aid he should continue with legal aid all the time. There comes a point where, if successful in the Court of Criminal Appeal and there is a new trial, then he should at least be put into the same position as the person acting for the State against him. I detected this antipathy—and I do not put a tooth in it—of the non-practitioner to the person who remains in practice. That is the reason for this. It is nothing more than a petty mind operating the continually denigrating process of fouling one's own nest. That is what they are at in the Department of Justice.

This attack, I now gather, is directed at some civil servants who are not here and have no opportunity of defending themselves. I deplore this attack on civil servants by this Deputy and by one other Deputy who spoke in this debate. The Minister is responsible here for the Bill and I stand over the Bill. I strongly object to this attack on people who have no opportunity of defending themselves. This House has always stopped such an attack. I object to it.

It was not clear to the Chair that the attack was directed at civil servants. If it had been, the Chair would have intervened immediately. The Minister is responsible for the Bill and not the officials.

So much for the question of costs in relation to accused persons. I take exception as well to section 36. I speak on behalf of those of us who engage in defence. Section 36 says:

(1) Where—

(a) the Court of Criminal Appeal makes, in relation to a person who has been convicted of an offence, an order resulting in his discharge (including a case in which that Court remits a sentence), and

(b) the Attorney General certifies that the decision involves a point of law of exceptional public importance and that it is desirable in the public interest that an appeal should be taken to the Supreme Court.

an appeal shall lie to the Supreme Court at the instance of the Attorney General.

This is a direct and deliberate attack on the principle that a man cannot be put in peril twice. I can well understand the Court of Criminal Appeal certifying for appeal to the Supreme Court because they considered there was a point of public importance. I have seen them do it. But for the Attorney General so to be enabled is flouting the principle of justice as we know it. An Attorney General of whatever Government is the officer of that Government and is appointed by that Government by reason of his political affiliations and for that reason is operating over the interests of all the community in relation to courts and charges. He should not be empowered —and I do not believe the Attorney General of the day would like to have the power—to certify whether something is in the public interest or not. That is a matter that has always been left to our courts and should be left now.

Section 43 proposes that the verdict of a jury in criminal proceedings need not be unanimous in a case in which there are not less than eleven jurors if ten of them agree on the verdict. That, again, is taken from the British code.

There have been instances in England where members of juries have been threatened and I think it was to meet that difficulty that the British brought in this majority verdict in criminal trials. I do not consider it is suited to this country. We have no quarrel with juries here; we certainly have no evidence of juries being approached by any people and if they have, the jurors have not said anything about it and have not appeared in any of the cases known to us as persons who were acting under threat.

The jury system is a great safeguard to the State and to the individuals charged. Looking over the record of juries, of which I have personal experience and of which I have heard, I do not know of any case in which any member of any jury was threatened or approached. Nor do I know of any case in which, personally speaking, whether I won or lost, I did not fully approve of the verdict of the jury. Even though we all like to win, we must sometimes realise, in verdicts against us, that a verdict is something greater than the individual concerned—a verdict is for the whole of society on whose behalf that jury was trying the accused.

Eleven persons seeking to let somebody free for some reason best known to themselves, and a twelfth, a highly principled person who listens to the evidence and who acts on it and will not be moved by the other eleven, bring about what we know as a disagreement, and consequently another trial unless the State opts not to go on. A third disagreement generally operates as an acquittal. Acquittal by 11 may not be the right thing for society, particularly on capital or noncapital murder, and a majority verdict could be a very dangerous thing. Eleven men can either acquit or convict, and when a person's life, in the case of capital murder, and life detention if not, is dependent on the views of 12 men, that view should be unanimous. However, what this section purports to do if it comes into force is to turn what we normally knew to be disagreements into either acquittals or convictions.

It is infinitely better, as has often been said, that ten guilty men should go free than that one innocent man should be convicted. An innocent man who would have 11 for conviction and one for acquittal would get his second chance. Under the provisions of this Bill he would not get it: he would be convicted. I strongly advise the Minister to have regard to the fact that in this country the unanimous verdict of a jury has served us well. Even in more difficult times a disagreement often brought about real justice. Therefore, I have no hesitation in opposing section 43.

I approve of the provision in section 48 which shows a tendency to make a guilty person pay compensation rather than to send him to prison and make him the guest of the State at further cost. If you hit somebody in the pocket it is much more effective than if you hit him anywhere else. I like the idea because very often in the countryside— I am talking purely of the countryside now—we come across rows arising possibly from family feuds, jealousy about a woman, an argument at a dance. Somebody may be wounded and the result may be a mark or scar or the loss of a bit of a finger. It may mean a sentence of 12 months imprisonment for the person convicted but that is not really an answer. If that person were made to pay a reasonable amount in compensation and allowed to return to his work, justice would be done because this is not an instance where a prison sentence is the answer. There are cases in which prison sentences must always continue to be the answer but if there is provision to allow for the payment of compensation in other instances, we can rely absolutely on our justices and judges to administer it correctly and fairly.

I do not know what section 51 means. The sidenote states "Suicide to cease to be a crime". The section is as follows:

Notwithstanding any rule of law to the contrary (but without prejudice to the next section), it shall no longer be an offence for a person to commit suicide.

How can you charge somebody who is dead? Perhaps this might refer to an attempt to commit suicide and we can look at the section in Committee. However, I do not see the sense of arraigning somebody who is dead for having caused his own death. Under the old law the survivor in a suicide plot was guilty of murder but that is now changed and I am glad to see that it is. Now the survivor is simply guilty of an offence involving a term of imprisionment not exceeding 14 years.

Debate adjourned.
Top
Share