asked the Minister for Justice if he will outline the circumstances under which a person (details supplied) in County Mayo was released from Ballina Garda station following his arrest on 26 February 1988 for non-payment of fines imposed on him by the Circuit Court in 1984; whether any petition was filed or processed in connection with this case; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Release of Person from Ballina (Mayo) Garda Station.
9.
I am informed by the Garda authorities that the person in question was arrested on 23 February 1988 for non-payment of fines imposed at Ballina District Court on 23 September 1984. While in custody at Ballina Garda station the Garda were contacted by my Department and advised that a petition was on hand for some time in respect of the person concerned. In accordance with normal practice in relation to penalties which are the subject of petition, the Garda deferred further action in executing the warrants and released the person in custody.
Did I hear the Minister correctly when he said that petitions had been on hand?
That is right, Deputy.
If that was the case had the fisheries board been contacted and informed about the petition?
A petition was received on behalf of the person concerned in January 1985 but was not processed by my Department pending the provision of additional information which was requested. No reply was received until my office was contacted on behalf of the person concerned on 23 February 1988.
Is it not normal that where there is a petition being considered and the Garda are informed that such is happening they do not take action? Will the Minister not agree that in this instance an arrest had taken place and the person was released from the Garda station on paying £80 expenses incurred by the District Court in respect of two summones and a reduced fine of £20? Would the Minister agree that this followed a telephone call to a member of his own party who is an office holder? Would the Minister agree, therefore, that the circumstances under which this took place have given rise to a great deal of concern? Would it not have been better that the Garda Síochána would have been informed that they should not proceed with any arrest in view of the fact that a petition was in the Minister's office? Why is it that an arrest took place when the petition was in the Minister's office? In this instance an arrest took place and the person, therefore, would be delivered to a place of custody. The circumstances under which the person was released must pose certain questions. As a result of a telephone call he paid £20, a fine of £20 reduced from £200 and £80 expenses. Would the Minister agree that this is a peculiar way to deal with the petitions?
The petition was lodged in January 1985. It was not processed because additional information was requested and did not turn up. No reply was received until my office was contacted on behalf of the person concerned on 23 February 1988. It is contrary to a very long established practice and inappropriate for the Minister for Justice to deal, at Question Time, with individual petitions for the remission or mitigation of penalties. It is the invariable practice of the Minister not to disclose the reasons for these decisions. From recollection, I think this is the first time this has happened. In the last year and a half I would have been contacted by members from all parties in the House with petitions which are not being processed as people would like. There is a further question on the Order Paper, Question No. 16, by Deputy McDowell of the Progressive Democrats, which ranges widely over the processing of petitions which we hope to deal with. There is a colossal backlog of petitions. It is a matter of concern to me, and it certianly must have been a matter of concern to my predecessors, that there is a practice, which none of us would condone, of people whose petitions have been refused repetitioning to put off the evil day.
I accept all that, but would the Minister not agree that where a petition is in the Minister's office the Garda should not go and arrest somebody? This person was arrested and brought to a Garda station and as a result of being arrested I understand his wife made a telephone call to a Member of this House who then contacted the Minister's Department and the matter was settled on the spot. That is a peculiar way to deal with petitions.
The Deputy is giving far more information than he is getting.
The information came in only at the time the Garda were acting on the warrant and the practice is, and has been for a long number of years, that the Garda would be notified of a petition being lodged with the Minister for Justice. In this instance there was obviously a slip up. It happens that the Garda are not always informed as they should be to save valuable Garda time executing warrants the basis for which is still under consideration in the Department.
Why was the person not released and the petition dealt with in a normal way? Why was it dealt with on the basis of a telephone call?
As soon as the required information came through, the petition was acted on and a decision arrived at with regard to that petition.
The person should have been released and the petition dealt with in a normal way.
The petition was dealt with in the normal way.
This is nods and winks stuff.
It certainly is not.
(Interruptions.)
Let me ask for the co-operation of the House on the following matter.
The Minister should contact the local Deputy.
The next question down for answer is Question No. 10 which the Minister proposes to take with Question No. 31 which has been nominated for priority. If we do not take Question No. 10 now I will be put in the position of adjourning the House for ten minutes because of there being only one question nominated for priority. I ask for the agreement of the House to now move to Question No. 10 which would allow us to reply to five questions together.
May I ask a very short supplementary question?
(Limerick East): May I ask a very simple supplementary question?
If the Deputies insist on asking short supplementary questions I must insist that we stick to the order of the House and I will end up adjourning the House for ten minutes. I have no other option.
My question is important.
(Limerick East): I will be very brief.
If the Deputies insist on asking questions it will mean we can have only one——
I just want to know if the Minister will take steps to ensure that when a petition comes in the Garda Síochána are notified not to execute the warrant so that this problem cannot arise again in the future.
That has been the practice and that is the practice which we hope will continue to be followed in the future. The Garda Síochána should have been notified when the petition was lodged.
(Limerick East): The Minister indicated that information which had been sought in 1985 was not forthcoming. Can he tell us whether that information was sought from the district justice, the local Garda Síochána or the fisheries board?
The Deputy knows full well that it is not normal practice to disclose the details of cases such as that. Additional information was sought to help the petition be processed at the particular time but that additional information did not come through until such time as the Garda Síochána had decided to execute the warrant.
(Limerick East): Who fell down on the job?
Well, I certainly did not. I will leave it at that. The Garda Síochána should have been notified as everybody is aware. I do not know who the Minister for Justice was in 1985, but the Garda Síochána should have been notified.
(Limerick East): I do not like the Minister's sly insinuations.
There is nothing sly——
(Limerick East): I asked a supplementary question. From whom was the information sought?
(Interruptions.)
It was dealt with in the normal way. If he were put into prison at a cost of £550 a week the Deputy would have another crib.
I cannot even get the Minister to sign a letter to me.
(Limerick East): It is typical sly Gerry stuff.
I regret that we did not receive the co-operation of the House in regard to the questions.
The fisheries board were not even contacted.
We must now deal with questions nominated for priority. Question No. 31.