Vol. 363 No. 9
asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if, in view of the judgment arrived at by Mr. Justice Carswell in convicting all 27 defendants in the Kirkpatrick trial and thereby undermining the judicial process in Northern Ireland, he will raise the matter at the Anglo-Irish Conference.
19.
asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if he is concerned at the outcome of the Kirkpatrick informer trial in Belfast; if he will call for an urgent judicial review of the case; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
28.
asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if he will outline the case against the continuation of supergrass trials in Northern Ireland made by him to the British Government.
I propose to take Questions Nos. 1, 19 and 28 together. My views on this issue are already well known. I have repeatedly expressed my concern at the systematic use of uncorroborated evidence from accomplices or informers in criminal cases in Northern Ireland. I have also stated my commitment, as Permanent Irish Ministerial Representative at the Inter-Governmental Conference, to seek the introduction of measures to increase public confidence in the administration of justice.
As the Deputies are aware, the conference have already considered this matter. At my request, a special meeting of the conference was held on 30 December 1985 at which the Irish side put forward views and proposals on this and other issues, designed to give substantial expression to the aim of ensuring public confidence in the administration of justice. Furthermore, a decision was taken at the second regular meeting of the conference on 10 January to establish a sub-group of the conference which will examine issues pertinent to the administration of justice. This sub-group will meet before the next meeting of the conference, scheduled to take place this month.
The proceedings of the conference, as Deputies will appreciate, must remain confidential. I am not, therefore, at liberty to indicate the particular proposals advanced by the Irish side in relation to this issue.
Is the Minister aware that the system of supergrass trials in Northern Ireland is used as an alternative form of internment in the form of a dragnet in Nationalist areas in particular? The defendants in the Kirkpatrick case have now served two years and nine months on remand and some of them, because of trials before that, have been on remand for five years. Is he further aware that only members of the Nationalist population remain in jail? Is the Minister also aware of the methods used to intimidate supergrasses and prepare them for trials against these people, many of whom are innocent?
I am aware that much of what the Deputy said has been alleged and I am concerned about many issues arising from the use of supergrasses in trials and the uncorroborated evidence of accomplices.
Does the Minister now condemn the supergrass system without qualification?
I have said on a number of occasions — inside and outside the House — that I do not like to see a system of supergrass trials where the uncorroborated evidence of an accomplice of one of the accused is used as a basis for convicting people.
Can I assume that the Minister now condemns the supergrass system without qualification?
It is quite clear, from what I have frequently said, that I do not think this is a suitable method of administering justice and it does not have the confidence of either community in the North.
Does the Minister approve of the system or does he condemn it?
If the Deputy is asking if I condemn the use of uncorroborated evidence for obtaining convictions I cannot do so without qualification because it is part of the legal system here also.
Does the Minister accept the supergrass system in operation in Northern Ireland? He cannot have it both ways, he either condemns it or he does not. I would be happy with a yes or no to the question.
I do not know how often I have to repeat this: the use of uncorroborated evidence from an accomplice of an accused to obtain a conviction in front of one judge is not designed to instill confidence in the system of justice from both sides of the community in Northern Ireland. I should like to confine my answer to that.
About a year ago, the Minister in this House justified the supergrass system because it put Loyalist assassins behind bars. Is he aware that all cases involving Loyalist supergrasses have ended in acquittals and would he care to comment on that?
Yes, I am aware of that.
Has the Minister any comment to make on the first part of my question, that he justified the supergrass system because it put Loyalist assassins behind bars?
This is argument.
I am quoting the record for the Minister.
I am aware of what I said in the House 12 months ago and I am sure that I said that I would wish to see assassins from either side put behind bars but that the method of doing that in Northern Ireland — the supergrass trial system — leaves a lot to be desired.
We all want to see assassins behind bars but we differ in the way it is done. The Minister has been given the opportunity to condemn the supergrass system——
That is not a question.
I have condemned supergrass trials on different occasions and it is on the record of the House.
I quoted the record of the House.
Not fully. The Deputy quoted one-third of a sentence from a 20 minute speech.
I was here for the speech.
The Deputy quoted me out of context.
I am now giving the Minister an opportunity to condemn the system——
I am calling on Deputy Skelly.
The Minister has not said that he condemns the system.
That is argument.
Can I take it that the Minister now condemns the system which he justified in this House a few months ago?
That is not relevant.
The Minister has been very helpful in raising this matter at the Anglo-Irish Conference in the past by calling a special meeting. Could he give an assurance to the relatives that he will try to arrange to have appeals heard at the earliest opportunity? Could he also mention that the contradictory evidence given in the conviction of all 27 people in the Kirkpatrick trial — even though some of the accused could prove they were not at the scene of the crime — was farcical?
It is not for me or the Conference to seek to have appeals heard on any particular date but I wish to draw the Deputy's attention to a statement made by the Lord Chief Justice within the last three weeks regarding this trial and the appeal.
I thought my question was important enough to be included in those nominated for priority so that I could ask unlimited supplementary questions——
Not unlimited.
It is not my fault that it was grouped with other questions. There should be unlimited supplementaries allowed on priority questions.
There are only 15 minutes allowed for priority questions.
Would the Minister be prepared to say what case he has made against the continuation of the supergrass trials in Northern Ireland to the British Government, having regard to the Minister's speech reported by the media shortly after the Harry Kirkpatrick case?
As the Taoiseach said last week about the Inter-Governmental Conference and the views and the proposals put forward by the Irish side, it is not proposed to reveal details of this or any other matter——
That is ridiculous. Does the Minister not agree that the House is entitled to know the case he is making on behalf of the Irish people against the supergrass system? We want to know because we are not sure that the Minister if fully convinced that the system should be discontinued.
Under Article 8 of the agreement, the Irish side are entitled to put forward views and proposals to help to create confidence in the administration of justice in Northern Ireland. As I said, we are doing that under a special sub-group of the Conference set up at the last regular meeting of the Conference which will meet before the next meeting of the Conference and report then.
Will we get an opportunity of discussing this matter fully in the House when the Minister puts our case to the British Government on this matter?
The Deputy can put down questions in regard to this matter. He can also put down a motion in Private Members' time and this matter can then be debated. However, it cannot be debated on the basis of the views I put forward at the Inter-Governmental Conference.
Can we not discuss the outcome?
The Deputy may see the outcome, but he will not know how that decision was reached.
