asked the Minister for Justice whether, in view of concern expressed by Government spokespersons about recent changes in the right to silence law in Northern Ireland, the Government have any plans to repeal section 52 of the Offences Against the State Act, 1939 which provides for a penalty of six months' imprisonment in cases where an accused person has refused to give an account of his movements.
Ceisteanna — Questions. Oral Answers. - Offences Against the State Act, 1939.
9.
As I have informed the House on a number of occasions, I could not undertake to indicate in response to a parliamentary question what specific legislative proposals, if any, I might have in particular areas. Planned legislative changes are announced in the ordinary way after Government approval.
Having said that, I might add that the proposals contained in the draft Criminal Evidence (Northern Ireland) Order, 1988, are quite distinct in content from section 52 of the Offences Against the State Act, 1939. The proposals in the draft Order are concerned with inference which may be drawn by a court from a person's silence in certain circumstances, whereas section 52 of the Offences Against the State Act, 1939 places a requirement on a person arrested under section 30 to answer certain specified questions in certain circumstances.
Would the Minister not accept that section 52 of the Offences Against the State Act, 1939, is a very drastic encroachment on the right to silence of somebody who has been arrested under section 30 and may face six months in prison if he does not explain his activities or movements? Would he accept that it is, therefore, somewhat hypocritical of this Government to express concern about the new draft orders in Britain, and Northern Ireland particularly, while at the same time leaving such a provision on our Statute Book.
The fact is that there is already a provision similar to section 52 in the Northern Ireland law. It is contained in section 18 of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act, 1978, and the new proposals are clearly quite a separate matter.
I would like to say to the Minister, in view of the information which he has now given to the House which relates to further legislation in Northern Ireland, that it is even more hypocritical of the Government to express the concern which they have done about similar situations which we have in our own legislation relating to the explaining of one's movements under pain of six months' imprisonment.
There is an element of repetition in the Deputy's question. If the Minister wishes to respond he may do so.
Section 18 of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act, 1978, as amended empowers a member of the British Army or the RUC to stop and question a person for the purposes of ascertaining (a) that person's identity and movements, and (b) what he knows concerning any recent explosion or any other recent incident endangering life or concerning any person killed or injured in any such explosion or incident. Failure to comply with such a request or failure to answer to the best of a person's knowledge or ability is an offence carrying a fine on summary conviction. The Government are concerned with the implications of the draft Criminal Evidence (Northern Ireland) Order and some of the provisions which appear to have far-reaching consequences for the administration of justice in Northern Ireland and the Government's views on the matters have been made known to the British Government.
I want to bring in Deputy Tom Fitzpartick.
May I finally ask the Minister if he would not accept that it is hypocritical to express that concern and if he would address himself to the legislation we have in this part of the country and not in Northern Ireland?
The Deputy is engaging in repetition.
I should say to Deputy Colley that the Criminal Evidence (Northern Ireland) Order, 1988, proposes to change the law in the North to enable an adverse inference to be drawn from a person's silence in certain circumstances——
It is our legislation I am concerned about.
Give me a chance to answer the question. Briefly, the circumstances are, where a person fails to account for objects, substances or marks on his person or clothing or in the place where the accused is found, where a person fails to account for his presence in a particular place and where a person raises in his defence, in court, a matter which he did not mention while being questioned by the police or on being charged which he might reasonably have been expected to mention, and a person's refusal when called on, in court, to give evidence. The first two circumstances reflect provisions in our own Criminal Justice Act, 1984. The Government are concerned, in particular, by the radical nature of the two other provisions I have mentioned. The Government consider that this legislation, as a whole, could have far-reaching consequences in a divided society, such as Northern Ireland, where there continues to be a lack of confidence in the administration of justice.
Can the Minister tell the House how many prosecutions have been brought under section 32 since it was introduced almost 40 years ago.
That seems to be a separate question.
I do not have that information ready at hand for Deputy Fitzpatrick but I will try to get it for him.
Would the Minister agree that they were few and far between? The only one I can recollect was one for black marketeering in the late thirties or early forties in Cavan.
Were the Minister and the Government made aware of this proposed change in the Northern Ireland law through the workings of the Anglo-Irish conference before it was introduced and, if so, did the Irish Government protest at the proposed change?
The Government were advised of these measures and gave their views on them before the announcement. In accordance with normal practice I am not prepared to go into detail on these confidential consultations.