I move amendment No. 1:
In subsection (1), line 19, after "may" to insert "by order."
This amendment, although it is to the definition section, of section 1, relates really to the situation which arises where an accused person is undergoing the process of the evidence in his trial being heard on commission.
It is provided, in section 11, that where a court, which would be in fact the Special Criminal Court, makes an order for the hearing of evidence on commission in Northern Ireland, the accused will be informed by the court that among other things subsection (d) states:
while he is in custody in Northern Ireland for the purpose of the taking of the evidence, he will be immune from detention, and any kind of suit or legal process, in respect of any cause or matter, civil or criminal, arising before his arrival in Northern Ireland for the purpose aforesaid.
There was a good deal of discussion of this matter on Committee Stage. We on this side of the House attempted to persuade the Minister to add to the prohibition of any kind of suit or legal process the interrogation of the accused. We were afraid that, under the kinds of conditions which unfortunately obtain in Northern Ireland, the police or military in whose charge the accused was, could well take the opportunity of interrogating him about his activities. These persons are, rightly or wrongly, essentially people who are accused or suspected of being members of illegal organisations, organisations dedicated to the use of violence in various forms. Such a person on his arrival in Northern Ireland would obviously be of great interest to the security forces. Indeed any person in charge of them who failed to take such a step would be, from the point of view of his superior officers, failing in his duty. It would be an obvious opportunity for such people to embark on a process of interrogation of the accused.
When I raised this matter with the Minister he said he did not think this would happen. In that respect perhaps he is a little innocent. Besides that the Minister suggested this could not happen because interrogation would be included in the phrase "legal process". I am not sure that that is so. But, if it is so, it would seem desirable to state that fact. Therefore, I propose that a further definition should be added to section 1 saying "In this Act, `legal process' includes interrogation." It would then be made absolutely clear that in the case of an accused who travels to Northern Ireland to have the evidence of his trial heard on commission he could not be interrogated either in respect of other matters outside the scope of the trial, or in respect of the matters concerned in the trial itself. It seems to me that as the Bill stands, the accused would be open to such interrogation, whatever form it might take.
I suggest to the Minister that, in order to ensure that his intention is achieved, he should accept this amendment, which would mean that an accused in such a case, could not be interrogated. It would have the effect also under section 12 that where an accused from Northern Ireland was present in the Republic for the hearing of evidence on commission, he could not be interrogated here either. It works both ways. This is an amendment which the Minister could very well accept and which would make absolutely clear what he intends should happen.