asked the Taoiseach as regards a case (details supplied) (a) whether a solicitor was appointed from the Chief State Solicitor's Office to prosecute, and, if so, the name of the solicitor, (b) if he attended, and (c) if a Garda officer was appointed to prosecute in this particular case, and his rank, status and experience.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Court Case.
1.
The case referred to was a summary prosecution in the Dublin Metropolitan District Court for driving without due care and attention, brought by a member of the Garda Síochána, on the directions of the Attorney General.
The Chief State Solicitor requested a solicitor from his office, who was handling two other cases in an adjoining court on the same day, to conduct the proceedings. During the absence of the solicitor in the adjoining court the prosecution in question came up for hearing and the district justice requested the prosecuting garda to proceed with the case.
I do not propose to accede to the Deputy's request to name the solicitor or to give particulars in respect of the prosecuting garda. I may add that the district justice convicted the defendant.
Will the Taoiseach admit that the prosecuting garda was only a very junior garda and that he had got no instructions from the Attorney General? Will the Taoiseach further admit that this is a grave miscarriage of justice? There is a widow with 13 young children. Her eldest son is making a one-man protest outside the Attorney General's office. Will the Taoiseach not now admit to me and to the House and to the country that there must be a grave miscarriage of justice? This man was not even insured. He was not presecuted by the Attorney General's Office for not having an insurance policy.
The Deputy may not discuss the case in detail.
In an important case like this, would the Taoiseach not admit that the case should not have proceeded without a solicitor or a senior Garda officer from the Attorney General's Office?
Has the Deputy been authorised to raise the matter by the person to whom he refers? On that will depend the fullness of my reply to his supplementary questions.
Yes.
He was an experienced garda who prosecuted this case. The district justice convicted in the case. Therefore there can be no allegation against the garda's handling of the prosecution. With regard to the allegation that there was no insurance, this is the first I have heard of this matter. I do not know anything about it. The case was brought in the usual way. It was presented to the Attorney General by one of his legal assistants. The prosecution was based on the advice of the legal assistant. It was brought and prosecuted in the usual way.
A man passed out another car doing an excessive speed. There were four witnesses prepared to give evidence. Yet that man was only convicted and fined £10. His licence was not taken from him for even one day. Will the Taoiseach have a further inquiry into this matter? Definitely, there seems to have been a grave miscarriage of justice when he was not prosecuted for not having his car insured. Something is being covered up somewhere.
Deputy L'Estrange sees something wrong under every Fianna Fáil bush. Now he is making an allegation against the Attorney General or somebody else. The prosecution was brought in the usual way following the usual examination in the Attorney General's Office. It was prosecuted successfully. The aggrieved person wrote to me early in January. In the same month unusual facilities were made available in view of the grief suffered by the person. In view of the fact that he felt so strongly about the case, he was permitted to see the entire evidence in the Attorney General's Office on one afternoon, with the assistant in the Attorney General's Office. He was given every possible facility. This was a most unusual course. He was allowed to see all the statements which were made. The legal official in the Attorney General's Office said subsequently that if the case were again presented to him he would come to the same conclusion and would advise the Attorney General as in the first instance.
Is it not the position that where a death results from a road accident, the man is charged with dangerous driving? Why was the charge in this case not of dangerous driving but of careless driving?
The fact that a death occurs in a road accident does not necessarily imply that there was dangerous driving. I have no knowledge of the facts of the case. I am prepared to accept that the legal official of the Attorney General's Office examined the matter objectively and came to an objective conclusion.
What charge was preferred against the driver? Was it a charge of dangerous driving or one of careless driving?
I indicated what charge was made in my reply.
Careless driving.
Driving without due care and attention.
The Taoiseach states that the Garda officer prosecuted successfully and therefore he was not at fault. Does the Taoiseach not know well that the defendant pleaded guilty to this reduced charge?
Hear, hear.
There was no reduced charge.
The garda had very little prosecuting to do.
The charge brought before the court was the original charge. There was no question of a reduced charge.