asked the Taoiseach if his attention has been drawn to a report (details supplied) that a large number of charges of serious offences against four teenagers in Cork were withdrawn; and if he will state the nature and the number of these charges and why they were not proceeded with.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Withdrawal of Serious Offences.
4.
I would refer the Deputy to the statement I made to this House on this matter on the 18th December, 1969. It appears at columns 2086-7 of the Official Report for that date.
As I was not a Member of the House at that time, would the Taoiseach be good enough to oblige me with a synopsis of what he said on that date?
Some time before the general election, 1969, charges were preferred against four young boys in the Cork area in connection with joy-rides in motor cars in the course of which they committed 208 offences involving a total of £100 worth of damage or loss. Some time before the general election members of my organisation in Cork complained to me that a nolle prosequi was entered against these boys. I made inquiries regarding the matter of the Attorney General and he told me he decided to enter the nolle prosequi for a number of reasons. First, because of the small amount involved; secondly, every penny of the amount of loss or damage was made good; thirdly, because of the background in that the father of one of the boys questioned his son about the circumstances of the case, extracted a confession from him and literally frogmarched him to the Garda station where he made him repeat to the sergeant in charge what he had told his father. I remember that the Attorney General told me he would have some difficulty in establishing this as proper evidence. In addition, he said he was concerned about the fact that they were young boys of respectable families. Because of their youth and having regard to the other circumstances he directed a nolle prosequi.
Can the Taoiseach state if one of the charges preferred was one of sacrilege?
Yes, in going off on one of the joy-rides I believe they opened a collection box in a church somewhere and stole 1s 8d.
May I take it from the Taoiseach's reply that solicitors in the country who might be consulted by persons charged with similar offences committed by young people may henceforward have their clients escape free from the consequences of their actions if they can indicate to the Attorney General that the young person's parents are respectable, that the young person has not been in trouble before and that he has made a complete confession?
I regard that as a consideration to be taken into account after the hearing, not before.
Surely these are matters for the courts, not for the Attorney General?
I cannot indicate now what I said to the Attorney General; in any event I cannot remember it in detail. However, the Deputy can take it from me that I was annoyed as well as other people about the outcome of this case.
Are we to assume from the Taoiseach's reply that he agrees this is a practice to be deprecated?
One must leave the decision in these matters to the Attorney General. It is a constitutional function and I cannot interfere with it.
Would the Taoiseach not agree that there is undue interference with the course of law in this country by politicians? Would the Taoiseach not agree that we have selective justice and that the laws are being brought into disrepute on account of what happened in this particular case? Will the Taoiseach not agree that this is so?
I get representations from people against whom charges are pending, as I am sure does every Deputy. I tell these people bluntly that as long as the matter is in the hands of the Garda and the courts I will not interfere, but if and when a prosecution is taken and the penalty imposed, then I might consider making representations for mitigation of the fine or length of sentence.
The Taoiseach is more successful with the Minister for Justice than I am.
Question No. 5.
Will the Taoiseach not admit that members of his party approach judges, district justices and chief superintendents and try to interfere with the course of justice?
That does not arise. It is a separate question.
I would not agree with the Deputy.
Surely the Taoiseach is aware that a sergeant in Cork was transferred——
We cannot discuss these matters.
——because he summoned people one night the Taoiseach was holding a meeting.
Will the Deputy please resume his seat?
He was taken back since.
This is totally out of order.
The Taoiseach is aware of it because I had a private conversation with him.
Will the Deputy tell the full extent of the private conversation?Does he not remember that I told him I knew nothing about it?
He has been taken back since.
Does he not remember that he accepted fully what I said to him?
I accepted the Taoiseach's word that he had not interfered, but he was taken back since.
The Deputy is at it again.
There is no problem so far as the Minister is concerned.
We cannot discuss this question all evening.
The Minister started the low standards in justice. He approached judges.
This is not Moore Street. We are not trying to sell herrings here. This is supposed to be a respectable House. Now that the Taoiseach has got sympathetic consideration from the Minister for Justice, I wonder would he impress on him that he should be a bit more liberal when we put sympathetic cases before him, in view of the hardship incurred from imprisonment, and in view of the fact that the prisons are full to capacity? When we put a good and sympathetic case before him, if he would remit the prison sentence and increase the fine everyone would be much happier and justice would be more evenly distributed.Would the Taoiseach have a word in the ear of the Minister for Justice on those grounds?
I can only say that I have been singularly unsuccessful myself in my representations to the Minister.
The Taoiseach was fairly successful yesterday. The Minister did what he asked.
That did not involve any prosecution.
He was afraid of the dissidents.