Question:
31 Mr. Mitchell asked the Minister for Justice if she will make a statement on the allegation in a recent Counterpoint programme that the Gardaí took no action on foot of an extradition request for the RUC. [2176/94]
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - RUC Extradition Request.
It is not the practice of Ministers for Justice to disclose, in the absence of special reason, the existence or otherwise of a request for extradition as disclosure of that information could hinder Garda action. As that danger no longer exists in the present case, however, I am prepared to make an exception for the purposes of the reply to this question.
I am glad to be able to say that the allegation referred to by the Deputy is without foundation.
Nine warrants in respect of the person referred to in the television programme mentioned by Deputy Mitchell were received by the Garda Síochána on 29 April 1993. On the following day, 30 April 1993, the Garda forwarded the papers to the Attorney General's Office as they do in the case of every request for extradition for the purpose of enabling the Attorney General to ensure that the request met the requirements of our law and of enabling him to discharge the special functions imposed upon him by the Extradition (Amendment) Act, 1987.
In November 1993 and before consideration by his office of the extradition request had been completed, it was informed that the Northern Ireland authorities had become aware of the likelihood of the person concerned going voluntarily to Northern Ireland, as in fact he duly did.
In January of this year the Northern Ireland authorities requested that the warrants be returned to them and they were returned.
I am surprised that there is not the same propensity to kick in the head the Attorney General's Office as there is to kick in the head of the Catholic Church because of the activities of a small number of members of that church even though the Attorney General is a paid public official and should be accountable for his actions. If we are to apportion criticism we should be prepared to do so across the board, without fear or favour, even if someone sits around the Cabinet table with us. Why did it take from 30 April 1993 until November 1993, seven months, for the Attorney General to consider this matter when it was clear that the RUC spent two and a half years preparing the charges and, to quote an RUC source, had crossed their is and dotted their is? Why did the Attorney General not act on those requests immediately or within a week or two?
I understand that the nine warrants received alleged offences committed on three unknown dates between 1964 and 1971, on three unknown dates between 1968 and 1976, on two unknown dates between 1982 and 1988 and on one unknown date between 1986 and 1988. I also understand that this case was the first in which provisions had arisen for consideration by the Attorney General's Office since the enactment of the 1987 Act. In addition to the normal requirements of ensuring that the warrants and ancillary documentation were properly drawn up and there was sufficient evidence in the possession of the requesting authorities to justify extradition as required by the 1987 Act, it was necessary for the Attorney General's Office to consider whether extradition, particularly in respect of offences committed up to 30 years ago, would be likely to be admitted by the courts which, as Deputy Mitchell will be aware, scrutinise extradition applications with great care to ensure that the rights of the accused are fully protected. I understand from the Attorney General's Office that the delay was not unusual given the legal issues and the complexities of the case. These were such that the normal examination of the case by officials prior to seeking a decision from the Attorney General on the request had not been completed at the time his office was informed that the person had voluntarily returned to Northern Ireland.
It is extraordinary that the Minister should refer to charges dating back 30 years. Some of them are as recent as 1988. Did the Attorney General take into account the rights of the children who were abused? Why were children both in the Republic and in Northern Ireland left in danger by the Attorney General while requests for extradition remain in his office?
I accept that the office of Attorney General is in the public domain but I would remind the Members that the Attorney General is a consititutional officer of the State.
That was my next question.
We should be slow to reflect upon him or involve him in controversy in the House. He is outside the House so far as the Chair is concerned and serious allegations should not be made against such a person under the privilege of the House.
I will make them outside the House.
That would be far better from the Chair's point of view.
My understanding is that the papers in this case were not submitted to the Attorney General for decision. This came about because of the time taken to have the matter examined within the Attorney General's Office. I am aware there are enormous pressures on the office due, among other things, to new legislation coming onstream. That matter is being addressed. I am advised that the application involved the consideration of issues affecting extradition generally because this was the first case since the passing of the 1987 Act. It was vitally important in the interests of the effective operation of the extradition code — by that I mean it should operate in the manner intended by this House — that an application which raised core extradition issues should be examined with the greatest care.
I wish to ask——
I have given the Deputy a good deal of latitude. The time for priority questions is exhausted.
I appreciate that. Would the Minister agree that the time has come to make the Attorney General accountable to the House given the additional powers conferred on him? Did the Attorney General seek political guidance while he sat on the warrants for seven months?
In light of my previous answer it is unfair to say that the Attorney General sat on anything. I clearly stated the facts of the matter. This case was not brought to the attention of the Attorney General during the course of the seven months. Consequently, he could not have sought political guidance, which in any event he would not seek in an extradition case.
Can the Minister separate the Attorney General from his officials? Does she blame them rather than the Attorney General——
The time available to us for dealing with Priority Questions is clearly exhausted——
It is unprecedented for the Attorney General to blame civil servants.
Can the Minister wash her hands——
——and I am now proceeding to deal with Question No. 32 from Deputy Gilmore in ordinary time by reason of a recent decision of the House.
God help the children of the country if they have to depend on officials in an office rather than on the Attorney General.