Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 2 Apr 1996

Vol. 463 No. 6

Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers - Seizure of Assets.

John O'Donoghue

Question:

14 Mr. O'Donoghue asked the Minister for Justice the total value of assets seized in 1995 under the provisions of the Criminal Justice Act. 1994. [7200/96]

Seamus Kirk

Question:

23 Mr. Kirk asked the Minister for Justice the total value of assets seized in 1995 under the provisions of the Criminal Justice Act, 1994. [7063/96]

Peadar Clohessy

Question:

24 Mr. Clohessy asked the Minister for Justice the number of orders that have been made to seize the assets of criminals involved in drug trafficking since the legislation was introduced; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [7083/96]

I propose to take Questions Nos. 14, 23 and 24 together.

I have dealt with this subject on many occasions before in the House, most recently on 3 October, 1995. On that date I informed the Dáil that the Criminal Justice Act, 1994, provides that applications for confiscation orders against persons convicted on indictment on drug trafficking offences and non-drug trafficking offences may be made by the Director of Public Prosecutions. The Act also provides that applications for restraint orders freezing assets which may be liable to realisation if a confiscation order is imposed may be made by the DPP.

I understand from the DPP's office that the DPP made an application to court for restraint orders in two cases. However, I understand that the DPP subsequently withdrew both orders, the first because he did not intend to proceed with the prosecution, and the second because the accused in this case was acquitted by the courts. I understand that no application has been made for a confiscation order under the provisions of the Act.

As the Deputy is aware, the DPP is independent in the exercise of his functions and it would be inappropriate for me to comment further on these cases.

Will the Minister accept that her reply will add to the growing cynicism of the public with regard to dealing seriously with drug traffickers and that it is unacceptable that only two applications were made and both were withdrawn? Could she explain why applications were not made in all of the cases where people were convicted of drug trafficking?

The Deputy is aware that when I became Minister the commencement orders for the necessary powers in the 1994 legislation had not been signed by the Government of which his party was a member. I signed these orders in May 1995. There have been two cases, both of which have been withdrawn for different reasons. It is up to the Garda and the DPP to decide whether they can proceed. The legislation is there for implementation. It is up to the authorities who investigate crimes and for the DPP to decide whether the relevant sections of the Act are implemented.

I am aware that the Garda are pursuing the drug barons and others. As prosecutions are instituted and convictions obtained I have no doubt that more and more orders will come into place. The legislation is relatively new and it would not be unusual for only a small number of cases to have been taken under it. However, I hope it will be used more effectively over the coming years, indeed as effectively as was intended when introduced by my predecessor, Deputy Geoghegan-Quinn.

Power of seizure is provided under section 38(1) of the Criminal Justice Act, 1994, which states:

A member of the Garda Síochána or an officer of Customs and Excise may seize and, in accordance with this section, detain any cash which is being imported or exported from the State...

Quotations at Question Time are not in order.

For this provision to be effective the Minister for Justice should have made a regulation under section 44 of the Criminal Justice Act, 1994. However, she failed to do so. Will she explain why she failed to introduce the seizure and confiscation provisions of section 38 of the Criminal Justice Act, 1994, pursuant to section 44 of that Act?

Lest the Deputy is not aware, I will deal with that issue in the House in about an hour's time.

I know that.

I will give him a full reply to his question at that stage and outline my intention to now bring that section into effect. The Deputy might ask his colleague why she did not bring the provision into effect immediately when she introduced the legislation.

On the seizure of the assets of drug dealers, the provisions of the Criminal Justice Act, 1994, are not adequate. It is necessary to go beyond them and look at the proposal put forward by many interested parties that the Government and the Minister, who have an important role to play in this area, should set up a specialist unit made up of representatives of the Garda, Revenue Commissioners and the Department of Social Welfare. The only way one can go after the drug dealers in a co-ordinated way is by using all the powers available and not just those contained in the Criminal Justice Act, 1994. The power is there but there does not appear to be a will to go after these people. This is mainly due to the understandable fear among Revenue Commissioner officials——

Questions, please.

To overcome this fear and the very real dangers facing people investigating drug dealers, it is necessary to set up a specialist unit which provides a certain degree of anonymity for officials so that they can go after drug dealers in an effective and co-ordinated way and get at their very substantial assets which they continue to accumulate.

The net point of the Deputy's question is that a specialist unit should be set up. It is precisely because I share the concerns expressed by many other people about the laws available in the criminal justice and Revenue systems that I asked the Revenue Commissioners and the Garda to work closely together. That report will be presented to Government shortly and I will bear Deputy Gregory's suggestion in mind during its consideration. There is already close co-operation between the Department of Social Welfare and the Revenue Commissioners. I understand the team set up in the Department of Social Welfare to investigate people accused of taking social welfare illegally has achieved great success. I will bear in mind the Deputy's suggestion that there is a need for a more co-ordinated approach between these three agencies during our consideration of the Revenue and Garda report.

I find it extraordinary that the Minister seems to have no difficulty replying to Deputy Gregory's policy questions on questions related to statistics but she appears to have considerable difficulty in answering my questions.

The Leas-Cheann Comhairle stopped the Deputy and he should not blame me for his decision.

The lack of seizures and confiscations relates not only to the problems in the office of the Director of Public Prosecutions but also to the Minister's failure to make the regulation pursuant to section 44 of the Criminal Justice Act, 1994. Her failure to do this since her appointment as Minister a long time ago has contributed to the situation whereby the assets of known traffickers could not be confiscated or seized by the Garda Síochána. The Minister has a duty to explain to the House why she did not introduce this provision by way of regulation until now.

I do not accept the Deputy's point. I have put in place certain sections of the Criminal Justice Act, 1994, and these powers are available to the Garda and the DPP. It is up to the Garda and for the DPP to prepare the case in court and for the DPP to decide whether he will implement those sections of the Act. This is not my responsibility. I prepared the legislation and made the powers available. The fact that two cases only have been taken under the sections which are the subject of the question has nothing to do with the other sections of the Act. The Garda and the Revenue Commissioners already have powers to deal with issues relating to people's assets. In about an hour's time we will discuss the implementation of section 44 and the Deputy can comment further on the matter at that stage. I do not have a copy of my speech with me but I will make my position clear.

I call Deputy McDowell for a final question.

It is my question.

Will the Minister agree that the statistical answer to Deputy O'Donoghue's question is zero and that more over 80 per cent of the drugs seized in the State in the past year were landed by the police in Castletownbere? Will she confirm that the problem with the legislation which has been in operation for 11 months is that it is limited and restricted in its ambit and that Deputy Gregory was correct in stating that, if there was a serious political will to undertake a war against the drug barons, more than two attempts would have been made in 11 months during the middle of the drugs wave which has inundated the State to get at some of the assets of these people?

As Deputy McDowell knows only too well, it is not for me to decide the number of times the legislation is implemented. Having listened to an interview the Deputy did this morning I am beginning to lose my confidence in his expertise. I always relied on him to be correct on all the issues to which he referred but this morning he tried to make the case that somebody might commit a crime while on bail when the issue of bail never arose. However, that is a debate for another day.

As I said to Deputy Gregory, his suggestion is worth considering seriously. It is not a measure of the Government's intent that two cases only have been taken. Rather these are the only two cases the DPP in his wisdom decided he could proceed with under the relevant sections of the Act. He subsequently decided he could not proceed in one case as it had not been proceeded with while in the other case the person was acquitted. I presume the Deputy is not asking me to ask the DPP to implement these sections of the Act in cases where a person is acquitted.

I am asking the Minister to ask the Attorney General to confer with the Director of Public Prosecutions.

The Minister without interruption, please.

I also ask her to ask him what is wrong with the legislation and why he is not doing more to implement it.

Deputy McDowell knows better than anyone else in the House, or so he thinks, that the DPP is independent in terms of how he decides to prosecute a case.

The Minister should check the 1974 Act.

Deputy McDowell would come into the House screaming if he thought the Minister for Justice conferred with the DPP on what cases to take and how to proceed.

The Attorney General is empowered to confer.

The Minister for Justice is not empowered to do this, yet the Deputy has asked me to do so. However, I will not do so. The Deputy said that the powers under the 1994 Act are limited but it should be remembered that this is a new Act and if it becomes obvious that it needs to be amended I will ensure that this is done. The Act was introduced in 1994, less than two years ago, I thought my predecessor would have been well aware of the difficulties etc., in dealing with drug traffickers and that every effort would have been made to ensure the Act was as strong as it needed to be. I do not wish to criticise my predecessor because the Act is a good one. However, I will examine its operation when it has been in place a little longer to make sure it is having the effect it was meant to have.

It is my question and I am entitled to ask a supplementary question.

The Deputy does not know what I am going to say so let him have the good manners to sit down.

The Chair refused me earlier.

Acting Chairman

There are other people in the House besides the Deputy and one of his colleagues had offered before him. I was going to let him ask the final question on this issue. It is time we moved on. There are other people in the House with questions tabled who would also like to have them answered. Deputy O'Dea offered some time ago.

Deputy McDowell's suggestion is that the Minister should ask the Attorney General to confer with the Director of Public Prosecutions about the problems in this area. Is the Minister not aware that under the Prosecution of Offenders Act, 1974, the Attorney General is perfectly entitled to confer with the Director of Public Prosecutions on matters such as this if the Minister requests him to do so? If the Minister is serious about correcting deficiencies in the implementation of this legislation, why does she not ask the Attorney General to confer with the Director of Public Prosecutions?

In view of the Minister's statement that the Garda Síochána are now working more closely with the Revenue Commissioners, has anybody been prosecuted for tax evasion in the past 12 months or is anybody serving a prison sentence for tax evasion?

With regard to the second question, perhaps the Deputy would table a separate question because I have no information at present about this very specific question.

Regarding the first part of the Deputy's question, Deputy McDowell asked me to intervene. It was only when I said I could not that he said I should ask the Attorney General to intervene. I am well aware of the powers of the Attorney General under the 1974 Act. As a result of the Deputy's inquiry I will certainly discuss the matter with the Attorney General. The relevant sections of this legislation have not been in place a full year yet. The Deputy, who practises law, will know that it often takes time for new legislation to be implemented in the way envisaged when the legislation was passed and results are not always immediate. I will certainly ask the Attorney General if he will not confer with the Director of Public Prosecutions. He has that power, but I do not. Deputy McDowell asked me to intervene and I thought I should tell him that I do not have the power to inquire or to intervene.

Acting Chairman

Let us now move to Question No. 15 in the name of Deputy Liz O'Donnell.

Deputy O'Donoghue rose.

Acting Chairman

We have spent 20 minutes on this question.

It is important.

Acting Chairman

I know it is important, but the Deputy has been in four times already.

All I want is to have my question answered. As I will not have the opportunity to do so during the debate on section 44 of the Criminal Justice Act 1994, I want to ask the Minister for Justice why she waited until now to implement the provisions of section 38 of that Act, and whether she would accept this should have been done a long time ago.

I intend to reply to that in the course of the debate later today. If the Deputy wanted an answer to a specific question such as that he should have tabled a separate question.

The Minister does not know the answer.

It is not part of the question tabled. I will be making a speech on that in about an hour's time. Perhaps the Deputy is so impatient he cannot wait. If it were not being dealt with today he could have tabled a separate question.

It is in the question. The Minister does not know the answer.

Top
Share