I want to refer very briefly to what Deputy Fitzpatrick said. Despite what he said, it is a fact that certain agreed questions—three in number—were put by both sides as a preliminary issue to the Supreme Court. The Deputy should have known that. I repeat that it is not true that the Government said in reply to the allegations: "We agree but we were entitled to act in this way." They did not say "We agree". In effect, they set out to say that in their opinion they had an absolute right to dismiss so costs should not be incurred in arguing about what did or did not occur.
Deputy Fitzpatrick referred to defective proofs in criminal cases. That may be his legal opinion, but I have no intention whatever of embarking on any legal arguments as to whether a statement made to a garda by a person detained for 24 hours would on that account be inadmissible. I am clear that if any such statement is thought to be inadmissible it is a matter for the convicted person to raise the point and to establish it in court.
With regard to promotions, I dealt fully with the matter in my opening speech. With regard to promotion panels for promotion to superintendent, these have no legal status whatsoever. These promotions are for the Government to make and are Government functions.