Vol. 488 No. 6
1 Mr. Higgins (Mayo) asked the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform further to Parliamentary Question No. 308 of 16 December 1997 the judges, if any, appointed for the purpose of administering the Criminal Justice (Drug Trafficking) Act, 1996. [6851/98]
As I indicated in my reply to the Dáil on 16 December 1997, 22 District Court judges permanently assigned to provincial districts were nominated by the President of the District Court initially to exercise powers relating to detention under the Criminal Justice (Drug Trafficking) Act, 1996. The President of the District Court has also indicated that he subsequently nominated all judges of the District Court for the purposes of the Act.
(Mayo): The Minister is being less than frank. One would imagine after the debacle of the release of the five detainees in the controversial Tallaght case, arising from the extension of the warrants by a District Court judge who had not been nominated properly for the purposes of the Criminal Justice (Drug Trafficking) Act, 1996, that the Minister would be up-front and accept responsibility. Is it not the case that Paul Dillon was arrested in Limerick on 6 November 1997? The Garda had the power to hold him for questioning for 48 hours. Was he not arrested on a charge of having £150,000 worth of cannabis? Is it not the case that the initial detention was granted by Judge Michael O'Reilly, one of the 22 judges nominated for the purposes of the Act mentioned, but that the second 72 hours authorisation was given by Judge John O'Neill who was not one of the 22 judges nominated?
I object to the Deputy's accusation that I am being less than frank. He knows that, as I have stated in the past, the appointment of District Court judges for the purposes of the 1996 Act is a matter for the President of the District Court, not for the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform. Despite this having been repeatedly made clear, the Opposition continues to complain as if the appointment procedure were a matter for me.
With regard to the specific case the Deputy raised, I understand it is before the courts. It would be wrong of me to speak in detail on it. The Deputy has touched on what I would describe as a very fine point of law. The powers of a permanently assigned judge are assigned under the Courts (Supplemental Provisions) Act, 1961. The Deputy's question is whether Judge O'Neill had sufficient powers to enable him to make the detention order pursuant to the 1996 Act. I cannot go into that matter because it is a fine point of law.
Is the Deputy suggesting that Judge O'Neill did not have the powers contained in the 1996 Act and that the 1961 Act does not apply to an appointment pursuant to the 1996 Act? I will not engage in an argument on that point because it is such a fine point of law. I will let the courts decide it.
(Mayo): On 16 December 1997 the Minister told the House that 22 judges outside the Dublin metropolitan area were assigned to carry out the functions under the 1996 Act. Judge O'Neill is not one of them. The Minister knows the likelihood is that there will be a repeat of the Tallaght case and that this individual to whom I referred will go free. We should not blame the Judiciary, although there was an administrative cock-up.
On 2 December 1997 I asked the Minister if he was satisfied that 33 cases of extended detention under section 2 of the 1996 Act were granted by judges assigned by the President of the District Court. In a written reply he indicated that he did not consider the question appropriate and went on at length in that vein. Before the Adjournment Debate that evening the Minister sneaked into the House and said:
In a statement to this House last Tuesday concerning the release of persons who appeared in court in connection with drug trafficking offences, I stated that the President of the District Court had nominated 22 District Court judges assigned to provincial District Court areas and one District Court judge assigned to the Dublin Area for the purpose of extending periods of detention under the Criminal Justice (Drug Trafficking) Act, 1996. This information was supplied to my Department by the President of the District Court. However, I received confirmation this evening that another district justice in Dublin, Judge Kirby, was also nominated by the President of the District Court under the Act. I regret that I inadvertently gave incorrect information, which did not emanate from me, to the House.
This was an apology for withholding information.
I ask the Minister to apologise because he knew on that date that there was another case pending, the case to which I referred. He said it privately. When the Minister gave us that information he knew there was another such case in November. This case was on 2 December. A judge, not properly assigned, gave an extension of a detention warrant. I ask the Minister to apologise to the House for withholding that information which he knew about.
I am a little confused. Is Deputy Higgins speaking about Judge O'Neill or Judge Kirby?
(Mayo): The Minister should know that Judge Kirby is in the Dublin area. We are talking about two separate assignments. In the Dublin Metropolitan area, there is the President, Judge Smithwick, and Judge Thelma King. The Minister told us in the controversial circumstances of this House that two judges were assigned by the President, the President of the District Court, Judge Smithwick and Judge King. The Minister sneaked in just before the Adjournment when the Gallery and the House were empty and apologised for withholding information that there was another judge in the Dublin area, Judge Kirby. The Minister told the House on 16 December that there were only 22 judges assigned for the purposes of the Act outside the Dublin metropolitan area and he gave their names. Judge O'Neill was not on that list and the Minister knew he was not on it. When the Minister told us Judge Kirby was an additional appointee in Dublin he knew about this case in the country which is still pending before the courts. I am not talking about that case, but the Minister's treatment of this House and the contempt he has shown for it. He knowingly withheld information from this House which we were entitled to know. The Minister knew about it and I ask him to apologise to the House.
This is an extraordinary display of theatrics. The facts of the matter are that there are many places in this country into which somebody can sneak, but I suggest the cauldron of Leinster House is not one of them. Irrespective of whether there is a journalist in the Gallery, I assure the Deputy the journalists know precisely what is happening in the House. One cannot sneak into Leinster House. There are cameras all around me and radio equipment. There are journalists here and the general public are entitled to come into the House.
The Chief Whip of Fine Gael was in the House that night and, if my memory serves me correctly, Deputy Higgins, the Fine Gael spokesperson for Justice, was sitting opposite me when I made that statement about Judge Kirby. I spoke in English, not in Swahili. I do not understand how anybody could get the impression that I was less than frank, or sneaky, with regard to the allegation that I withheld information. I suppose it is true I did not have the information on 25 November which was available to me on 2 December to the extent that I did not know the position in relation to Judge Kirby.
I cannot understand how Deputy Higgins could even dare suggest that I knowingly withheld the information. The facts of the matter are that on 25 November I dealt with the release by the Dublin Metropolitan District Court of five persons and in that statement I gave the House the information that was available to me, including the fact that the President of the District Court had nominated Judge Thelma King to hear the applications. On 2 December when I became aware the President had also nominated Judge Kirby to hear cases in Dublin, I corrected the information at the earliest possible opportunity.
As regards the other matter, I was asked about other cases and replied I would like to help the Deputy but said that some of those matters were before the courts and I did not have the statistics available to me nor did I anticipate that I would be asked for them. In so far as this case is concerned, I explain, for the second time, Judge O'Neill is a moveable judge of the District Court or was at that time. He was assigned by the President of the District Court to the Limerick District Court area and, as such, under section 4 (2) of the Sixth Schedule of the Courts (Supplementary Provisions) Act, l961, he had the powers of the permanently assigned district judge and arising from that Judge O'Neill would have considered he had sufficient powers to exercise those functions under the Criminal Justice (Drug Trafficking) Act, l996. The point Deputy Higgins put to me is a very fine point of law. The question is sub judice. I will not interpret the law or prejudice this case. I reject Deputy Higgins's allegation that I came in here and deliberately misled the House. It is clear from any interpretation of the events that I outlined the judges who were permanently assigned. I listed them in the House on Tuesday, 16 December l997. Judge O'Neill's name does not appear on that list because he is not or was not a permanently assigned judge at that time.
(Mayo): Therefore, he did not have those powers.
The only issue that arises now is whether the l961 Act empowered Judge O'Neill to administer the powers conferred on the permanently assigned district justice in Limerick pursuant to the 1996 Act. That is a matter for the courts. It is ludicrous in the extreme for Deputy Higgins to come into the House and make these wild allegations on a very fine point of law in regard to a matter which may well be decided by the courts, depending on the course of events.
(Mayo): It will be decided by the courts.
Deputy Higgins said it will be decided by the courts, but that surely will be a matter for the defence lawyers. I will not become embroiled in a controversy on the finer point of law in this matter or how the courts may interpret it. I strongly suggest Deputy Higgins should leave it to the courts to interpret the law.
I remind Members it has taken almost 15 minutes to deal with the first question and if we continue that rate of progress we will deal with only four questions in an hour.
Deputy Higgins is responsible for that.
(Mayo): A straight apology would have done.
If Deputy Higgins keeps looking for apologies like this, one of these days he will ask me to apologise for being here.
(Mayo): The Minister should do that.
