Special Committee Defence Bill, 1951 debate -
Thursday, 13 Mar 1952

SECTION 31.

Captain Cowan

I move amendment No. 33 :—

In sub-section (2), line 19, to delete the words " ten pounds " and substitute the words " one hundred pounds or to imprisonment for a period not exceeding six months or, at the discretion of the court, to both such fine and such imprisonment."

I think the Minister might agree to that. This is a case of dealing in the ordinary courts with a person who obstructs the Minister or a person authorised by the Minister from entering on land for the purpose of making an inquiry, investigation or examination preliminary or incidental to the doing of anything which the Minister is authorised by this part of the Act to do. If a person obstructs an authorised person in the exercise of these powers he will be guilty of an offence and the Bill provides that he will be subject to a fine not exceeding £10. Ten pounds might have been all right a long time ago but it is no penalty in certain circumstances. I think the penalty ought to be a fine not exceeding £100, leaving it to the discretion of the District Court, in the circumstances, to decide what fine should be imposed.

Chairman

I think it is a very reasonable suggestion. Ten pounds does not matter very much nowadays.

Mr. Traynor

It is very healthy to have Deputies expressing that viewpoint but we have been advised legally that the sum mentioned, £10, would meet the case and that it is the sum that is mentioned in other Acts.

Chairman

It is, but the point is that with the fall in the value of money it does not mean anything. It is just a token penalty. I wholeheartedly support Deputy Cowan in this. I think there should be that power in the Bill and the court will then apply it reasonably. You are only stating an upper limit.

Captain Cowan

You do not think it is too severe ?

Chairman

That is the mistake you may be making. You are not saying that the penalty shall be £100, but that it shall not exceed £100. It simply means that if there was a very bad case, the district judge, or whatever the court might be, could not impose more than a £10 fine. In the ordinary case, he could still impose, with the amendment, less than £10 or even let the man off with a caution. It is merely fixing a maximum. You might as well face it now instead of having to bring in regulations in a time of near emergency to increase the penalty and have another administrative headache.

Mr. Traynor

I have not any very strong views on the matter. I would like to hear the views of the other members of the committee on this question.

Mr. Hilliard

I would be in favour of adopting Deputy Cowan's amendment. A fine of £10 in certain cases would be very nominal to certain classes of people that I have in mind. I think there should be power to impose a fine not exceeding £100.

Mr. Brennan

Would you have the word " maximum " there?

Chairman

It is " not exceeding ".

Mr. Brennan

Then the district justice could use his own discretion as far as the individual is concerned.

Chairman

That is the position.

Mr. Carter

Would he take into consideration the loss of the particular site or field?

Chairman

That is a different story. That is one of the compensation provisions which will be looked into.

Mr. Traynor

Perhaps I should point out that at this stage it is only a matter of looking over the land, it is only going in to have a look around. The man may say: " Get off my land. I will not allow you to inspect this land. Go and get a warrant or something else." He may have a wrong idea about the whole thing. You are going to impose a fine of £100.

Chairman

Supposing the fine is " not exceeding £10 " and the gentleman in question happens to be rather unreasonable, what are the Minister's troops or the Minister's officers going to do if the gentleman comes out with a shotgun? The officer cannot start a small battle with a shotgun. Therefore, the gentleman with the shotgun knows that he will get off pretty well scotfree and the Minister and his officers are put into the position where they are virtually hopeless. On the other hand, if there is a substantial fine, the Minister, through his officers, can retire gracefully and do the thing in a perfectly constitutional way. I do not think Deputy Cowan would be wedded to the sum of £100. The net suggestion is that there should be a substantial increase in the maximum fine specified, and we suggest that the Minister would find an appropriate figure.

Mr. Colley

We must remember that this would be a deliberate act because he has to have 48 hour's notice.

Chairman

If a fellow comes out with a shotgun, in theory you can blast him out, but, in practice, the officer has no option but to walk back gracefully and to fall back on the courts. That is the proper procedure in peace-time.

Captain Cowan

He may turn out with an Alsation dog, which would be worse than a shotgun.

Mr. Traynor

He could be charged with threatening to use a shotgun or weapon. That might not be the case if he brought out the Alsatian. We will compromise. We will bring this back to our legal advisers and say that generally the feeling of the Committee was that £10 was too small.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Section 31 agreed to.

Sections 32, 33 and 34 agreed to.