This is a Bill for the protection of juries. Its introduction has been necessitated by some very terrible happenings which have recently taken place in this country. I suppose there is no member of the Seanad who is not aware that there exists in this country a certain body of men who are striving by armed force to break down the administration of justice. These men are not numerically very strong. They have within the last year steeped their hands on at least three occasions in innocent blood. They have on two occasions murdered, and on another occasion attempted to murder, men whose only crime was that they did their duty as loyal citizens of this State.
Public Business. - Juries (Protection) Bill, 1929—Second Stage.
Motion proposed: "That the Bill be read a Second Time."
Has the Minister any reason for supposing these people have done so?
I have.
As I understand, there is no evidence of that.
Yes, I have. As recently as last week, in the County of Clare, a very diabolical outrage was perpetrated in which a poor young Guard, an excellent Guard, was the victim. As the Seanad, no doubt, is aware, a trap mine was laid. This young man—a fine type of young Irishman—on opening the mine, was blown to pieces. The attack was made not only on the Guards whose duty it is to detect crime and to bring criminals to justice, but an attack has also been made upon witnesses. A witness in a case supposed to be of a political nature—what is called a political crime—a young man of the name of Armstrong, was foully murdered a few months ago in this city of Dublin. On another occasion an attempt was made—fortunately unsuccessfully—to murder a juryman who had served on a jury which had brought in a verdict in accordance with the testimony before them. There has been for some years past a deliberate effort to tamper with jurymen in this country to prevent them from doing their duty, and to prevent them from administering the law fairly between the people of the Free State and the persons who are charged with crime.
As far back as June, 1926, armed men raided the offices of the city under-sheriff and took away copies of the jury panel. One man was arrested, charged, and convicted for that offence in April, 1927. From that time onwards, all through the months, deliberate attempts have been made to intimidate and frighten juries, to urge on jurymen not to do their duty but to violate their oaths. I have here a large number of documents dealing with the matter. I have here a very large number of notices which have been served on jurymen. I do not intend to read the whole of them, but I intend to read just a few, so that Senators will understand clearly the growth of this conspiracy, culminating as it did in the murder of Mr. Armstrong and in the attempted murder of Mr. White. There were some very shocking statements in newspapers on that occurrence, and it will be necessary for me to bring them under your notice. The policy which is being pursued in this respect was very clearly put in a document captured on a certain lady who was tried for that offence and convicted. I have the original document, but I am reading from a perfectly accurate copy published in "An Phoblacht" on the 28th April, 1928. The policy is there laid down as follows:—
"All our energies should be directed towards securing the collapse of the Free State Courts for many reasons. One reason is that it would be easier to get workers if convictions were fewer. Another reason is that the Free State's great argument is that it is the will of the people of Ireland to remain a British Dominion. When juries acquit our prisoners it proves that the people, if they will not assist, at least approve of others who fight the old fight. Therefore, juries ought to be bombarded with literature of all sorts. It is an excellent opportunity of bringing home to everyone his responsibility and duty towards his country. In future lists of juries will be read out to our members, so that if any men are known personally to our members they may approach them. As much information as possible about character, etc., will be procured. Some can be persuaded, others intimidated. The ‘Ex.' will see that addresses of jurors who convict are known, so that our members may paint their houses, paste up their names, etc."
That document shows very clearly the view that was taken that jurymen should be intimidated and prevented by all means from doing what is their duty by the State.
Is that document advocated by "An Phoblacht"?
That document is printed in "An Phoblacht." There were other articles in that paper which I propose to read.
I understand that that is not advocated.
I have not said that it was advocated. I have said I am simply reading a report contained in the particular issue of that paper. Following on that, various documents were sent to jurymen, not only in Dublin, but in other parts of the country. A certain man called Con Healy was put upon his trial and found guilty. The charges which were brought against Healy were that on two separate and different occasions he fired at certain members of the Guards with intent to murder, and other counts that on these two separate occasions he fired at these two members of the Guards with intent to do them grievous bodily harm. He was found not guilty of shooting at with intent to murder, but he was found guilty of shooting at with intent. The evidence was clear and decisive. One of the jurymen who served on that jury was Mr. White. As Senators are aware, Mr. White escaped providentially with his life, but I must read to the Seanad to show the prevalence of this conspiracy certain leaflets which were issued by an association which calls itself "The Ghosts." Here is one:—
"To Irish citizens. Break the connection with the British Empire. The Irish Republican Army are striving to-day as Tone strove in another generation to free Ireland from British rule. This can only be achieved by overthrowing the two British imposed Governments in Ireland to-day. The enemies of Ireland are imprisoning the men and women who are carrying out the only practical programme to attain freedom. Unfortunately, some of Dublin's degenerate and slavish citizens assist them in this work."
Then it sets out the names of twelve jurymen. The first name on the list is that of Mr. White. Then it goes on to state that they
"helped Carrigan and the infamous Judge Sullivan to send the Irish patriot, Con Healy, to penal servitude for five years. These men are traitors to their country. Death would be their fate in any free country of the world."
That is the man who was tried and found guilty of shooting at members of the Civic Guards with intent. That man who fired at members of the Civic Guards was held up to be an Irish patriot, and the statement is made regarding the jury who found him guilty on clear evidence that death would be their fate in any free country in the world. In another document published by the same persons, they mention again the twelve jurymen and say:
"These twelve national renegades who are responsible for sending Con Healy to five years' penal servitude, are spending their lives guarded day and night by England's paid gun-men. This is Dublin's opinion of traitors."
Here are deliberate attacks made upon jurymen, and which, as the Seanad knows, culminated in the attempted murder of one man. Unfortunately, these documents do not stand alone, because not merely this association, but newspapers in this country—"An Phoblacht," and another paper called "The Nation," which though it is not the official organ, we are told, of the Fianna Fáil Party, is edited by one of the leading Fianna Fáil Deputies in the Dáil, expressed jubilation about the terror which was endeavoured to be spread amongst jurymen. In "An Phoblacht" of the 23rd February, 1929, this statement appears: "In Maryborough Hogan and Con Healy are being treated as ordinary convicts." Hogan is a man who was found guilty of murder, and his death sentence was commuted to penal servitude for life. Healy's offence was firing at with intent.
"The slave-minded jurors who convicted them are responsible, and are paying for their treachery. One is lying in a Dublin hospital, and the others have to be protected by England's Secret Service men."
In "The Nation" of the same date, February 23rd, 1929, this statement appears:
"As the ‘Prisoners' Notes' are often too gloomy, I am going to improve them this week by a few cheering items. If anyone wants an amusing sight, let him venture out on a cold, wet day and view sad and shady-looking C.I.D. men standing outside the houses and also the business premises where the jurymen live or are employed who were cowardly and misguided enough to convict of treason that Tipperary volunteer, Con Healy—"
He was not convicted of treason. He was convicted of shooting with intent—
"who has devoted his whole life to unselfish service of the nation, and thus handed him over to British vengeance — five years in Maryborough hell. The employers of some of these jurymen are not at all flattered by the assiduities of the C.I.D. They have to do business in the Irish nation, and it is never a good business advertisement to be watched by the police; people seem to take polite pleasure in asking them why their premises are being watched."
Can the Minister say whether that quotation is part of the same article?
I read one quotation from "An Phoblacht" and the other from "The Nation." They are different weekly papers. In an edition of the "Nation" of May the 18th, 1929, the following statement appears:
As long as the law is used as an instrument of political tyranny, as in the case of Con Healy, and as long as colour is given to the suspicion that juries are packed, so long will juries and witnesses be unsafe.
I have other notices here, which, as I say, were sent round to jurymen, but I do not intend to read any more of them. I think these extracts show clearly that there is in existence a conspiracy directed towards injuring the person, injuring the property, and, as far as they can, making life unliveable for men who do their duty to the State. The juryman is an ordinary citizen, chosen to hear and determine between the State and whoever may be charged with crime. A panel of ordinary citizens is struck, and from that panel the jurymen are selected. It is a duty that most citizens have got to perform. It is not a pleasant duty, but it is a duty in which, when they are performing it, jurymen have got a right to look to the State for protection. It would be indeed a terrible state of affairs, it would mean the end of all ordered government in this country, if a certain number of persons might succeed in breaking down the jury system; if they might, by intimidating jurymen, by murdering jurymen or by injuring jurymen in a lesser degree in their property, in their trades or in their professions; in allowing the guilty to go free, and crime to walk open, naked, unabashed and unpunished. It is our duty to see that such protection as the law and as the Oireachtas can give to jurymen shall be given to them, and for that purpose we have introduced this Juries (Protection) Bill.
It is obvious that if juries are to be intimidated, if juries are to be injured in their person or in their property then the names of the jurymen must be known, and this Bill has this object in view, that it will be difficult to the verge of impossibility for persons of criminal intent to know the names of jurymen. We trust that jurymen will be emboldened to do their duty as jurymen have well done, fairly between the State and the prisoner, and at the same time that they will have the sure confidence that in doing so they are not running any risks which jurymen should not be asked to run. At the present moment the jury panel is a document which any member of the public can get. That has been so since the passing of the Juries Act, about 1871, and it is the same under our recent Juries Act. Any person who likes can on payment of a small sum of money obtain the jury panel. That made it very easy for those persons who have intimidated jurymen, who attempted to murder jurymen, to obtain the names of jurymen. If any person can obtain a jury panel then it is easy to approach a person whose name appears on the panel and it is easy to intimidate that person. It is easy to know what jurymen have actually served upon any particular jury. Under this Bill we propose to make the jury panel a document which will be an official public document. That is to say, only those persons shall know the names of the jurymen on the panel whose duty it is to prepare the panel, and the court officials and other persons connected with the administration of justice.
Will the Minister make that point quite clear?
I will. It will be a confidential official document and that confidential official document cannot be supplied to any person without leave or permission.
It will be accessible to the prosecution?
May I ask how it will then be a public document?
It is a confidential official document. It is not a document available to the public.
You said a moment ago that it would be a public official document.
If I said "public" I meant to say "official." I might have used the wrong word. It is an official document not available to the public.
A Senator
Not even to the accused.
No. If anybody shows that in the interests of justice he requires an inspection of the panel permission could be given him to inspect it. But that is a permission which for the protection of jurymen should only be given to reputable persons, persons who can be trusted not to allow information to leak into the possession of those individuals who desire to break down the jury system, who desire to intimidate jurymen, or who desire to injure jurymen in their property or in their persons.
Who will control that?
The Minister for Justice.
Would it be available to the solicitor or counsel for the accused?
Not as a general principle. Unless permission was given it would not, and it is perfectly obvious that if there is to be that secrecy in the names of the jurymen which in present circumstances is necessary for the safety of jurymen, it should not be given out.
Even to a member of the legal profession?
Even to a member of the legal profession.
So much for that.
Is that on the assumption that they are not reputable persons?
Cathaoirleach
The Minister has made it clear that it will not be a public document.
On the assumption that they are not reputable persons.
There are certain members of both professions who are reputable, but there are others to whom I cannot apply that term.
Can you put the cap on yourself?
When the panel has been struck the jurymen will be summoned by post, and each juryman will have an alternative before him. He can either go before the County Registrar, mention that he is in Court, and have his name ticked off, or he can wait until the County Registrar calls the names in court, but that would not be in public court. There will be only a certain number of persons as provided by Section 4 in court when the names are being called. From that time onward the jurymen shall be called by numbers, and by numbers only.
Would the Minister for Justice supply masks to them?
The Senator is trying to be humorous, but I think his joke is not very successful. It will be almost impossible for the persons who wish to injure jurymen to obtain the names of the jurymen on the panel. It will also be very difficult for them to know the names of the jurymen who serve upon a particular jury. But in case they might be known, and also because in my own view it is an improvement on the existing law, we have brought in a provision in Section 5 for a majority verdict. A verdict of nine out of twelve shall be sufficient to secure acquittal or conviction of a person, as the case may be. Nine for a conviction shall be sufficient for a conviction, and nine for acquittal shall be sufficient for acquittal. That is a new departure in this country, because heretofore the law has required the unanimous verdict from a jury of twelve. That is the British system. In England and in all countries except, I understand, certain parts of the United States, where the law is based on English law, a unanimous verdict is required. But a unanimous verdict is not required in places where English law is not in force. For instance, a unanimous verdict is not required by Scots law. As far as I have been able to discover, a unanimous verdict is not required by any continental country. In all these cases a majority verdict is considered sufficient.
I might also point out that nowadays many alterations have been made in criminal administration, and a Court of Criminal Appeal has been set up which is a great safeguard to the person charged, because the State never can bring a case before the Court of Criminal Appeal; it is only the person charged who can bring his case to that Court, and if there has been any miscarriage of justice, anything wrong in the direction given by the Judge, or if the finding of the jury was not justified by the evidence, then the Court of Criminal Appeal can set that verdict aside. In addition to that, comparatively recently prisoners have been allowed to give evidence in their own defence. As to whether that is an advantage or a disadvantage to persons charged with crime I will not debate here. Power is also given under this Bill that in the trial of cases of a certain kind when "an officer of the Gárda Síochána not below the rank of superintendent states on oath to the Judge presiding that in the opinion of such officer it is necessary for the protection of the witnesses and jurors concerned in such trial that the public should be excluded from the Court during such trial, the Judge shall order the Court to be cleared." The result of that is that nobody will be in court except the persons actually concerned in the trial, except correspondents of newspapers, that is to say, the case can be fully reported. But there are certain provisions as follows:—
Whenever... an officer of the Gárda Síochána not below the rank of Superintendent produces to the Judge presiding in such Court one or more then recent issue or issues of a particular newspaper or a document or documents appearing and purporting to be such issue or issues and the Judge is of opinion that any articles or other matter contained in such issue or document or any of such issues or documents is calculated to intimidate jurors or witnesses either generally or in the particular trial then in progress or to prevent or discourage such jurors from performing their duty according to their oath without fear or favour or to prevent or discourage such witnesses from giving their evidence freely, fully and truthfully, the Judge shall forthwith order that all persons claiming to be representatives of or reporters for such newspaper be excluded from the Court so long as such Court continues to be cleared under this section.
If "a representative of the Press is known to be or is suspected of being concerned or associated in acts of intimidation of jurors or witnesses or acts of a treasonable or seditious character or is known generally to associate with persons concerned or suspected of being concerned in any such acts the Judge shall forthwith order all such persons to be excluded from such Court."
The result of that is that reporters on papers in sympathy with attacks on jurors shall not be allowed into court during the hearing of a certain class of case, but the ordinary journalist who is not connected in any way with these criminal associations will be able to remain in court and give a full, entire, and an impartial report of the proceedings that take place in court. But apart from journalists, apart from barristers who are bona fide practising members of the Irish Bar, the court will be cleared in certain cases of every person. Power is also given to the Judge to adjourn a case if he is satisfied that jurors or witnesses are being intimidated. It is also made an offence to publish
"the names either in writing or by word of mouth the statement in regard to any other person (whether such statement is true or is false) that such other person was called, sworn or engaged as a juror in the trial of any particular criminal issue."
Certain provisions are laid down in Section 11 with regard to penalties for dealing with the intimidation of of jurors, and by Section 12 persons are not allowed to loiter in the vicinity of criminal courts, that is, of course, that those individuals whose desires are directed towards breaking down the administration of criminal law in this country might easily have their touts and other persons scouting for them in the vicinity of the court to discover who served upon the jury, possibly following individuals home and leaving them open to attack by evilly disposed persons. This Bill, as it now stands, is not a permanent measure. It will terminate upon December 31st, 1931. It is our hope to try the Bill for a period of two years. There are many things in this Bill which, when it is seen working, I believe will be regarded as real improvements upon the existing criminal law, and will then, if it is the opinion of the Oireachtas that it should be done, become part of the permanent administration of criminal law in this country. At the present moment, however, it is only proposed to continue it in operation until the 31st December, 1931. It is our hope that under this Bill it will be possible for our courts to work smoothly, effectively, and fairly to administer justice as it should be administered between the State and the people charged with crime. If this Bill does not prove effective for its purpose, if for a certain class of crime and under certain circumstances it is necessary that the jury system should go, then in those circumstances, and for that class of crime, we will have to bring forward proposals that some system other than the jury system shall be set up, because it is the duty of this Government, as it is the duty of the two Houses of the Oireachtas, to see that justice is done between the State and persons charged. It is their duty to see that guilty persons do not go free; it is their duty to see that crime cannot walk unchecked, unpunished through this land, and it is also their duty—a very strong, potent duty, which devolves upon us all—to see that persons who do their duty, like jurymen and witnesses, who, if jurymen, bring in fair verdicts upon the evidence before them, or who, if witnesses, bear true testimony against criminals, that these jurymen and these witnesses shall remain safe. It is the duty of the State to provide protection for jurymen and for witnesses, and I am sure if it becomes necessary for us to apply for strong powers to provide that safety we will receive those strong powers from the Oireachtas.
I move:—
"That the Bill do come up for consideration in six months' time."
I put down this motion in order that the Minister might have time to reconsider what seems to me not only a bad but a very foolish Bill. The difference between the Minister and myself is one between causation and effect. The Minister talks of effects. I will talk of causation which, I think, is going more to the root of the matter than any talk of the results which come from bad administration. I oppose the Bill because it is bad in its essence, and because it will do infinite harm. It is brought forward in entire misjudgement of the causes of these crimes, if crimes they can be called, as no doubt they are crimes, but as yet there has been no proof in court with regard to the people who are supposed to have committed them. There have merely been statements. However, the Minister presumes that these people have been guilty of these crimes. Supposing that is correct, I do not think it is due to any inherent wickedness in these particular people, because I do not believe that in this or any other country there is very much inherent wickedness. These results are caused by misgovernment of various sorts. If you go back in history and examine what happened—and after all that must guide us—it is certain and clear that whenever assassinations took place and secret conspiracies arose, it was always as a result of bad and unjust administration. That is the ultimate causation of all the things the Minister has been condemning. For instance, within my memory, there were murders in the Phoenix Park which everybody at that time condemned and which were generally condemned by the world. They were caused by the terrorism instituted by "Buckshot" Forster, and by that alone.
On a point of explanation, I ask the Senator if he means to imply that the same kind of terrorism has been going on under the present Executive as went on under Forster—I would like to know that for my own information.
If the Senator will listen, I will answer his question at the proper time. I will not go through the whole of our history; I will take the history of the ten years' war in Italy. That was a war of assassination caused by Austrian tyranny in Italy, and it was pursued unrelentingly for ten years. It is not only the results we must consider, it is the causes of these results, and time which has exposed the causes in these things will in time expose the causes which have arisen in this country. In my opinion the administration of so-called justice in this country is essentially and thoroughly bad. So far as the detective force are concerned they are practically supreme in regard to the carrying out of administration. They have been given practically complete power to do what they like. They can arrest man, woman, or child just as they choose. Whether these men are in plain clothes or in uniform they can go to any person and say: "You are engaged in criminal practices." That is a very wide discrimination. In all civilised countries these detective forces are carefully trained and carefully selected as to the class of people taken into them. They are expected to know something of the law as far as their work is concerned; they are expected to have great tact, and they are expected to be of a high character and to be incorruptible. When any of these qualities are absent the results are bad.
I might, as an example, quote what is happening in London at present. The London police at one time had the highest character in the world. Certain incidents happened, one after another, and British Ministers themselves at once took the matter in hands and had investigations made, as a result of which they made great changes in the whole administration of that force. They put it under the control of a military officer of high distinction who had been accustomed to control large numbers of men, and they gave him power to make whatever alterations might be necessary. I think the Minister would be very wise if he adopted somewhat similar methods. Unfortunately, the very opposite methods have been applied here. Many of the people who are employed in this force are unsuitable in character; they are quite untrained, and they are quite unacquainted with the law. Their only qualification, as far as I can see, is the making of wholesale arrests and, very often, beating and ill-treating persons whom they arrest. That is notorious. But what is worst of all is that no efforts have been made to restrain that force. A free hand has been given to them, with unlimited powers to do what they like, and even when they act brutally they have been sustained and excused. I could quote instances where the Minister has sustained them in this House, and, no doubt, he will sustain them still and attack us with the same sort of phrases that General Macready and Buckshot Forster used in advocating their methods, because he has only to look up the Parliamentary Debates to see the very full vocabulary of coercion that is available, words which can be applied by the Minister to-day whenever it suits him to do so. Here is this Bill as a justification of what he has done and of what he intends to do.
Some time ago in this House I called attention to a case in Kerry where a member of the detective force went into an hotel during an election and gave a member of the Fianna Fáil Party a brutal beating. I happened to be in the hotel at the time, and I saw the effects of it; I saw the man covered with blood, practically unrecognisable, with all his clothes covered with blood. That man was put out of action for the rest of the election. He was in the infirmary, and, of course, that was a very good thing for the Government from the electioneering point of view.
Do you approve of the murder of that detective?
Do I approve of his murder? I did not know that he was murdered. This is the first I have heard of it. All I know is that I saw this man after he had been horribly beaten. He must have beaten this man with something.
There was a row between these two men, and this friend of Senator Moore's got the worst of it, having started the business. This detective, whom the Senator is now attacking in this fashion, is the poor man who was blown to pieces the other day in Clare.
The Minister says that the person who was attacked in that case was the attacker. That was not the case, as was proved in Court, when the Judge strongly condemned the action that was taken by this man. If he had been treated as he ought to have been treated—dismissed from the force—he probably would not have been murdered. I am sorry that he has been murdered. I think it was very shocking, and I do not in any way attempt to justify it.
Do you condemn it?
I knew this man well, but when I went into his room the next morning, I did not know who he was.
Do you condemn the murder?
It was done during the election, and in order to put him out of action during the election.
Might I intervene for a moment? I know how this will look in the Official Report. The Minister has asked Senator Moore if he condemned the murder. I doubt very much whether Senator Moore heard that question. He went on to make other references. It will appear in the Official Report, and no doubt it will be quoted against him that he evaded the question. I think that Senator Moore should have an opportunity of answering the question.
I think I did answer his question—that I had never heard of his murder until now. Is that the point?
The Minister asked the Senator whether he condemned the murder.
I asked it three times.
I think it was asked in such a way that the Senator did not hear it, and I know how it will look in the Official Report.
Of course I condemn the murder. I began by saying I regretted it. I said I regretted it. Even if he did the horrible thing that I say he did, I would not shoot him for it or sanction such a shooting. There was an election some months later in County Kerry and this man took part in it. These detectives who were attending meetings arrested that man, who had been beaten fiercely, with half a dozen agents of Fianna Fáil, and they were kept in prison for a considerable time. They were only released by order of the Minister himself. An action in connection with the matter was tried, and if I remember rightly, these arrests were condemned by the judge as illegal. There was no occasion whatever for these men to be arrested. That is not the only case of the kind—far from it. There was a case in Leix-Offaly with which I also happened to be more or less connected in the way of finding out things about it. It was the case of an old lady of about seventy and of a man who worked for her. This man, who managed her farm for her, was attacked; the two of them were very badly treated for some considerable time and boycotted, and the man was shot in the hand. I am not alleging that he was shot by the detectives. He came up to Dublin and complained to the former Minister for Justice that he was not properly protected by the police—a very justifiable complaint to make; whether it was true or not he had the right to complain. Some time afterwards the place was set on fire. There were some investigations, and as a result the detectives arrested both the lady and the man on the charge of having set fire to the lady's house. They were let out after a time. I am not sure whether the lady was imprisoned or not, but the man was put in prison and was later released on bail. Several months elapsed during which both were under this charge, but eventually they were both honourably acquitted. This charge was brought against them by the police, merely because they had reported them, but the action of the man was highly praised by the judge, who said that he had behaved honourably and straightforwardly and had defended his employer as best he could, for which he deserved every credit. Several police gave evidence in the case, and not one of them was believed, either by the jury or by the judge. As far as one can see, it was a case of conspiracy for a certain purpose.
Take the case of McBride, who was arrested about eight or nine months ago, I think, just as everybody else is arrested, by a man who says he is guilty of certain practices and who puts him in prison. This man was kept in prison for many months, but at last was brought up for trial, with some others. Certain detectives gave evidence against them. When one of them was cross-examined it turned out that he was already under suspension for having beaten prisoners. I presume that the suspension was by order of the Minister or of the police authorities. The judge and jury disbelieved every word that the detectives said and found the man not guilty. Then, again, we come across the case in North Dublin to which the Minister has been more or less referring. A man was shot in January. There was no political talk about the matter. The detectives were attempting in the ordinary way to discover the murderer, if the man had been murdered, or whatever the cause of his death was. Then an election came on, and immediately out went the detectives to arrest people here and there all over North Dublin. Sometimes the same person was arrested, put in jail, released, and the moment he was out arrested again and put in prison, and released, sometimes in the middle of the night, when he could not find any place to go to. It is impossible to say how many cases of this kind there were, because the Minister declined to give any particulars or any names, but it is believed that at least 150 people were arrested at that time. Then President Cosgrave, after being silent for many months, chose to come to a meeting and to make an election speech on this very case. The police went about arresting any people—girls or anybody else. The detectives when going along in a motor-car would pull up beside some girl, jump out, put her into the motor-car, carry her off without notice, put her in jail and cross-question her—a thing that is absolutely forbidden in England—to extract whatever evidence they could get out of her, and the same thing applied in the case of men. That was a sort of mental torture. That happened in the middle of the North Dublin election, and what was the result of the appeal to the electors? Nearly half of the electors, having all these acts of the police in front of them day by day during the election, voted against the Government, which had only a majority of 150 when formerly they had many thousands. That was a condemnation of the action of the police and of the administration of the law. In effect, it was a vote of no confidence in the detectives and in the Minister.
Not only in North Dublin, but all over the country great numbers of people—in one case nearly half the electors—do not believe that prisoners get fair play. They believe that they are recklessly put in prison, and that they may be condemned by false evidence got up by the police, as in the case I mentioned. Let us consider what that means in any country. I do not care what country it is. When the great part of the people believe that justice is not properly administered, the result always is that crimes and conspiracies arise, and very likely assassinations follow them. It is with the causation of these crimes that I am dealing. The Minister deals only in a short-sighted way with what happens as a result of the causation, but I go to the root of the matter. The Minister has not been very long in office. I admit that he came into office when there was a difficult situation, but if he had the courage and the strength to meet that situation, he would at once have set to work to reform that particular part of the administration of justice. I can imagine no better seed-bed for crime, conspiracy and assassination than that such a large number of the people should be dissatisfied with the actions of the Guards, people who think that their friends and associates are stuck in prison without justice or reason, and that they may be condemned, perhaps sentenced to death, through false evidence. Naturally—very wrongly—but naturally the result of such a state of affairs in any country is that people try to strike back. That is the general experience—however regrettable it may be —that people who believe themselves to be ill-treated attempt to strike back. I deplore that fact, but I am not astonished. I have only to look at history to know that that happens, that it always has happened, and that it probably always will happen as long as human nature exists as it is. Men who know how to govern foresee that kind of thing, and regulate their conduct accordingly. Anybody who has had to do with the control of men knows the best way of controlling them, but there are a great many people who do not know how to control them. None of the present Ministers has any experience whatsoever of controlling men.
A Senator
General Mulcahy?
I do not consider that he has. I am not speaking after the event. At the time when these things were happening I did my best; I repeatedly went to Ministers, privately and publicly, and begged of them to alter their line of conduct. I told them that they must not look to the immediate results, but to the ultimate results, and that I believed that the line of conduct they were pursuing would not lead to good results in the long run. Of course they did not believe me; I did not expect they would, but I did the best I could in the circumstances. The result of all this seems to me, if the Minister's statements are all true and if these conspiracies do exist and are undermining justice, that what I have said has been borne out. Year after year we have coercion Acts, one after another. Sometimes in one year we have two or three of them, and sometimes only one. It is not so very long ago since something happened and a coercion Act was brought in which we were told would settle the whole thing. Detectives were given full power to arrest anybody they liked. Has that succeeded? Everybody knows that these things are inadvisable if they can be done without, but have they succeeded? The Minister for Justice has said that the present Bill may not succeed and that he has something in his pocket— another revolver in his pocket, I am afraid—that he will take out.
I think that one of the worst aspects of this matter is the attempts made by Ministers to fasten these charges on Fianna Fáil, who they know perfectly well do not approve of any of these acts, and use them at elections. The very fact of their doing so undermines the essence of them. I daresay I shall be attacked for making these statements, but it is better to get at the root of this question, to see what we are doing and to see what the results will be. All the coercion Acts passed by England years ago were probably advocated in just the same way as this Bill, with just as good reason, or just as bad. Ministers advocated them, but not one of the Ministers now in power in England would justify the past, and in a few years not one of the Ministers who will be in power here will justify what is being done now, because it is being done on false lines. I do not mean to say that Ministers do not believe it will succeed. The Minister for Justice has had absolutely no control over men, has had no experience and no knowledge of them. He came out of the West country: he has never been a politician, but he has been put in office and put into a very difficult position. I can see no chance of peace and quietness until some Government starts with a clean slate, abolishes political stunts in such matters as these, and makes a thorough reform of the detective department, as has been done in other countries.
I rise to second the motion. Senator Moore has gone into a great deal of detail and has quoted concrete instances of various causes which have, perhaps, begotten some of the trouble with which the Minister—in my opinion, in a rather futile way—is trying to deal. I am not going to reiterate the various things that Senator Moore has dealt with, but I would suggest to the Minister and to the House that the terms of this Bill show very little hope of effecting any possible result in the country and may, perhaps, vitiate what the Minister himself claims is already a vicious position.
Whether the position is vicious or not, we are not in a position to say. The Minister makes certain statements. Since he assumed office he has continued to make certain statements. I think it is only right and fair to say that there is at least very considerable doubt cast on most of the defence that the Minister has put up for the detective organisation, or the C.I.D., in this country. To defend anything which the people of the country know is practically indefensible, is one of the inevitable root causes of crime.
On a point of order, what has all this to do with the Juries Bill that we are discussing?
Cathaoirleach
I think it has a great deal to say to it.
I do not think the Senator heard the Minister's speech.
I suggest that we are having a new régime of Greenwoodism in Ireland, and those of us who lived through Greenwoodism before, believe that we will survive this attack of Greenwoodism, and that we will possibly emerge from it cleaner and purified, and, perhaps, more like what the Minister would wish us to be. But to come down to the practical issues in this Bill, I cannot see any decent citizen going on a jury as a willing juror. In the first place he is not allowed to be seen. In the second place his name is not to appear in any list which can be seen by anybody except by those people who have a certain definite point of view, and a certain object in view. The Minister admitted on examination here that even the defendant's counsel or solicitor will not be allowed to see this confidential jurors' list which he described as a public document and a confidential one at the same time. Now I cannot conceive how any administration of justice is to take place if the defendant's solicitor or counsel is not going to be allowed to intervene or to say who is to act as a juryman. It is of the quintessence of packed juryism to have it otherwise. It means that twelve men, twelve officials if you like, can be organised by any Department, by the Department of Justice perhaps, and kept there ready to walk into the jury box and walk out like so many puppets on the stage to bring in the verdict they wish for. I do not suggest that that is going to happen. I do suggest that it can be charged against the administration, that such a thing was happening. The fact that the defendant's solicitor, counsel or the prisoner himself is not going to have sight or view of the jury or is to know anything about those who compose it, can make it possible to charge against the administration or the Minister for Justice that he had twelve puppets ready to carry out his will at the behest of the Cabinet, which in turn controls him. In my opinion, that is a dangerous state to get into. The Minister has admitted that English law and United States law has always held for a unanimous verdict of the jury. I do not know what the Minister's point of view would be on the question of a life and death issue, where a prisoner was standing trial for his life. It has been generally accepted that a unanimous verdict of the jury was at least essential before a man's life was taken away as punishment for a crime. I think it would be a very serious thing for the law not only in this country, but all over the world if we broke down that tradition. It is ironical to find that it is in Ireland, in the Free State section of Ireland, that this break which I suppose has not taken place since Magna Charta, is going to be first established in this country, in this alleged Free State.
The Minister has explained that the judge must, on the suggestion of a superintendent of the Guards, clear the court. There are a good many of the legal fraternity here and I wonder just how they feel about that. I wonder how the Chief Justice feels about it, and how the various judges feel about it, that any superintendent of the Guards is going to get the ear of the judge and say to him: "There is a certain undesirable person here, and it is not desirable that the court should proceed with its business while that person is here. Accordingly I, as a superintendent of the Guards"— what I would call a super-peeler or a policeman—"order you, one of the judges administering justice in this court, to clear the court and do as I tell you." According to the Act the judge will have no alternative but to do so. That is certainly a pretty pass for legal administration in this country to come to. The Minister went on to say that he thinks that this will be a great improvement in the criminal law. In the same breath almost he suggested that if he is not successful in this that he has still other parts to play. I would like to be quite frank about this, and say to the Minister for Justice that if he feels that the jury system has broken down in Ireland and that he cannot protect jurors, I want to assure him first of all that this Bill is not going to protect them. In no court in Ireland and in no district in Ireland will a man serve on a jury without it being known to his immediate neighbours, or to the people beside him, that he has been on a jury. Take the position in any country town. A man dresses up to go to the court he is summoned to attend. The people there know that he has been away. They know that a trial has been on at that time, and they know the result of the trial. They know who have been on that jury. With the exception of the City of Dublin, I would say that there will not be any man attending on a jury in Ireland where it will not be known that he has been sitting on a jury. Therefore, I say that this is no protection for jurors. If the Minister feels that he cannot get the jury system to work in Ireland in all those terrible circumstances which I, like Senator Moore, believe have been carried on mainly for political propaganda and have always been launched at the time of a by-election, I would say to him: "Go the whole hog now, establish your Star Chamber, make your Star Chamber the Cabinet itself, and let them take the trial on their shoulders and run courtsmartial." They have legal fraternity on it. They have men on it who seem to have the interests of the State at heart. Do not throw this dirty work on a lot of unfortunate jurors covered up in a dark room in a secret court, and then pretend to the country that you are protecting them. You are not doing that. If you want to face the thing, take off your coats yourselves and do the thing unashamed. Go out nakedly and have your courts-martial. Maxwell held his courts-martial and he made no bones about it. He went right on with them. If you argue that the present state of the country is in such a way that you cannot carry on the administration and cannot trust a jury, that there are the hidden hands we heard about in the "Daily Express," and the inspired interviews which had to be repudiated afterwards on account of the tourist traffic—if we have all these things going on, let us in God's name do without jurors altogether, forget about juries and judges, hold your courts-martial and get on with the work. If that day has arrived, then we can face it. In these circumstances it is rather queer, too, that the Minister for Justice should suggest that he wants fair verdicts and fair evidence. The system that he is trying to establish by this Bill is a direct incentive to anything but fair evidence and fair verdicts. I, for one, cannot see how he hopes to achieve his purpose. We all, I feel, want order and decency to prevail in Ireland. This Bill, to my mind, is a provocative Bill, and will not do what it is supposed to do, namely, to protect jurors. On the other hand, it will create bad feeling and bad blood everywhere it is operated, and will never last to the end of the time suggested by the Minister, 1931. This Bill is opposed to all that the people would stand for in the way of decent freedom. Remember that in this Bill we are setting back the clock some 300 or more years. On the Minister's admission, we are the first country in Europe to try to do so. I think that is a most retrogressive step to take, and a step that must be condemned by the Seanad. I have great pleasure in seconding the motion moved by Senator Moore.
If it be proposed that we should have an adjournment this evening and resume later, I suggest that this would be a suitable time for the adjournment to take place.
Cathaoirleach
That is a matter for the House to decide.
I move that the House adjourn until to-morrow.
There are one or two points referred to that I would like to deal with.
Cathaoirleach
Is it agreed that we should hear the President before we adjourn?
Agreed.
One or two charges have been made here that the occasion was seized on by me to utilise the by-election in the city of Dublin to make a certain rather remarkable and rather momentous statement. That statement was made, I believe, on the 5th March, thirteen days' after Mr. Armstrong met his death at the hands of scoundrels in this city. There are people, I suppose, who would describe that incident as an accident.
It was a very serious accident for Mr. Armstrong. It was a very serious accident for his aged mother and father. It was a very serious thing for the administration of law in this country when a witness in a case, some two months after his evidence had been given, was murdered within a few yards of his own home. He was murdered on the 20th February, 1929. A few minutes after he had been murdered, two statements were made in the Dáil: one was by Deputy O'Kelly. In dealing with the matter which affected one of the members of his Party, he said:
"The Executive Council themselves had two men political prisoners in jail for what, if they are anything at all, are very shadowy political offences."
The other is Deputy Cooney's statement, column 167 of the Dáil Debates of the 20th February, 1929:
"On the other hand, we have in this city the Executive Council imprisoning men who tore down the Union Jack."
Perhaps to Senator Connolly that statement is not very remarkable— these statements are not very remarkable, perhaps, to Senator Moore —but the speech to which we have just listened is very much on a par with those two statements. Here is a Senator, occupying his position and accepting his responsibility, talking as if this State was something he looked upon endeavouring to function. He enjoys his position as a member of the Seanad. He enjoys the privileges and rights of a citizen of this country. I presume he benefits to some extent by being a citizen of this country, and yet he stands out and says: "You can establish courtsmartial in this country." That is evading one's responsibility and ignoring one's position as a Senator in the State.
On a point of order, I said the courtsmartial would at least deal with the thing frankly and openly, and that the Juries Bill has no chance of doing what it sets out to do.
I presume the Senator would support a proposal to set up courtsmartial?
In preference to this Bill, yes.
My statement made on the 5th of March to a much higher court than the Oireachtas— the court of the people—was that the rights of juries ought to be preserved and that that ought to be the privilege and prerogative of any and every party in the State.
What answer did the people give?
The answer I expected.
You got your majority reduced from 8,000 to a couple of hundred.
The Senator will find that, as far as the real majority is concerned, the figures are the same as in the previous election. That, however, is beside the point, which is that the citizens in the North City constituency stood for a decent livelihood in this country, and the rights of citizens to put down such dastardly attempts at the taking of life as had been successful in the case of Mr. Armstrong.
Has it been proved that Mr. Armstrong was killed by anybody in particular?
That is proving my case more clearly. Persons like the Senator who has just spoken are incapable of dealing with this matter in the way in which it should be dealt with—as a problem. Does the Senator suggest that Mr. Armstrong was shot by some other person?
I did not refer to Armstrong at all. I dealt with the Juries Bill. I said this Bill meant packed juries, and unless they are carefully packed it will not protect jurymen.
The Senator explained himself at some length, and he contradicted himself in the explanation. In the first place, the Senator addressed himself to the uselessness of this Bill, and said that it might be alleged the Minister packed juries, but that he would not go so far as to say that that was his view, but that it would be the view of many people. Then the Senator went on to say that every man would be known who served on a jury even in Dublin. If the Senator reads his speech he will realise the utter mess he has made of his comparison.
What I said was that everybody who served on a jury outside of Dublin would be known.
Inside Dublin people have a peculiar faculty of identifying people they do not know. Citizens who act on a jury are well known. I have never met a case where one man on a jury did not know some other man on the jury. The Senator has taken an extraordinary line. He has taken the line of the real slave-minded people in this country. He is the mouthpiece of the Party which stands for the slave mind. He appeals to the Magna Charta and says we are going to lose the fruits of the Magna Charta. Is a unanimous verdict necessary in Scotland?
In open court.
So the Senator fell into that mess also. Now we are coming to the open court. Was Mr. Armstrong entitled to go into open court? Was he entitled to go out of it? Was he entitled to immunity in carrying out his obligations as a citizen of the State? Has a person a right to own whatever property there is in his house? Are people who are determined to take the lives of men like Mr. Armstrong, to be entitled to go into any house in the city and take away any emblem to which they take exception? Senator Connolly said he was in favour of law and order. Does he stand for the right of people in this State to enter premises and take away property which does not belong to them?
I have not attempted to defend anybody who has committed a crime. We are not dealing with a specific crime. I am dealing with the Juries (Protection) Bill and nothing else. With all respect, I suggest that the President is evading the point and is pouring abuse.
It is not my intention to evade the point or to give abuse. Out of what does the Bill arise? Why did we introduce it? I say deliberately and solemnly that nothing would give me greater pleasure than to leave public life when peace, law and order run in the country. As long as I occupy my position, as long as there is a problem to be dealt with, such as we have been faced with for the last year or two, I would be evading my responsibilities and acting as a coward if I did not bring into the Oireachtas such an Act as appeared in the wisdom of the Executive Council sufficiently comprehensive to deal with any and every occasion that would arise. What are the occasions that have arisen? We have had in twelve or eighteen months several attempts at embracery. What is embracery? It is the means used by misguided, and unfortunately evil-minded, people to influence juries in the verdicts they should bring in; in other words, it is an attempt to sap the integrity of juries. Do members of the Fianna Fáil Party stand for that? Are they in favour of it? Do they believe the courts ought to be furnished with juries uncanvassed and uninfluenced by organisations outside?
The Fianna Fáil Party are not on their trial.
It so happens that they have put themselves on trial. That is the unfortunate position. It is by reason of these two statements that I had to go to the North City and to the country, and tell the people what the situation was. I invited from that platform a pronouncement from every person who spoke in favour of the jury system for law and order, and for free ingress to and egress from the courts, and not having to suffer embracery. For two years young ladies, as I suppose they would call themselves, served terms of imprisonment for embracery. We had this attempt on the life of a juryman. We had printed up all over the county and the city of Dublin the names of jurymen. We had an attempt, fortunately not successful, fortunately some dud gun-man was employed and was not able to effect the foul purpose of shooting the man dead. With that situation and with the names of the jurymen published, we are criticised for bringing in a Bill to protect the lives of jurymen against these scoundrels, and endeavouring to secure immunity for people who had sufficient sense of citizenship to discharge in the courts the duties that fell to jurymen. We have had it suggested to put on courts martial, that they are respectable, that Sir John Maxwell held courts martial and they were respectable. That is the slave mind.
The laws here are made by the representatives of the people. They are made in their interests, and they are made to secure decent and ordered livelihood for the people of the country. I would much prefer, in the interests of that order to which Senator Connolly addressed himself a moment or two ago, that he would look at this matter not so much through the Fianna Fáil spectacles, but to see in what way public opinion could be brought to bear on every citizen as to the advisability of maintaining the jury system. If we are to take it the Senator is right, and that we should go on with courtsmartial, that is disposing of the jury system. I may say that so far as his observations are concerned regarding a unanimous verdict that he is wrong. The rule as to a unanimous verdict does not prevail in France. It may so happen that it is as much in the interest of the accused person as it is against him.
It is the responsibility of the State and not of the Government alone, but of every man in the State to secure that our courts should be allowed to function without interference and without any organised conspiracy against them either in respect to jurymen or witnesses. I submit that if there be an objection taken towards the exhibition of any emblems, change the law and give the people the right to enter the premises and take down any emblems to which they object. Give them that right by law, but until you give them that right have none of this sob-sentimentality about prosecuting people for tearing down something. That is dishonest pleading. It is not a case that should be put up by any free man, and it is not a case that could be put up by any man who says he stands for law and order in the country.
I move the adjournment until to-morrow.
The Seanad adjourned at 7.20 p.m. until Friday, June 21st, at 3 p.m.