asked the Minister for Justice if it is a fact that John MacMahon and Thomas Quinn, each aged fourteen years, who were charged at Abbeyfeale with breaking insulators, the property of the contractors of the Shannon Electricity Scheme, have been committed to a reformatory for five years, and that Edmond Quinn, aged eleven years, and Patrick Quinn, aged nine years, charged with the same offence, have been committed to an industrial school for three years; whether the Minister is prepared to review the evidence against these boys, with a view to the remission of the sentences, and whether he will consider the advisability of instituting an inquiry into the punishments prescribed by law for juvenile offenders.
CEISTEANNA—QUESTIONS. ORAL ANSWERS. - PUNISHMENT OF JUVENILE OFFENDERS.
I understand that five youths were charged with breaking insulators, the property of the contractors of the Shannon Scheme. All five were convicted, and sent either to a reformatory or to an industrial school. I have no power to review the evidence in these cases. Under the Children Act, 1908, the Minister for Education may at any time order a child or youthful offender to be discharged from a certified industrial school or reformatory, as the case may be either absolutely or on prescribed conditions. If those interested in these young offenders think a case can be made at any time for their absolute or conditional discharge, the proper course is to present a petition to the Minister for Education. On the question of the punishments prescribed by law for youthful offenders, I would refer the Deputy to Sections 57, 58 and 65 of the Children Act, 1908. It will be found that these sections provide for a very wide discretion in the committing justice, and I do not see what improvement could be effected. For further information on the matter, I would refer the Deputy to the Minister for Education.
Does the Minister not think that five years and three years for an offence of that kind are savage sentences?
I do not know the whole facts and circumstances of the case at all. All I know is that insulators were broken, and, of course, if boys in that neighbourhood start breaking insulators when the scheme gets into working, it would be a terrible thing; it would endanger human life. I do not know the circumstances surrounding the case of these boys at all, or as to what sort of control their parents exercise over them.
Does the Minister not think that the severity of these sentences makes it quite clear that the time has arrived when the Juvenile Offenders Act should be inquired into?
I cannot agree with the Deputy in that conclusion. Full discretion is given to the Justice, and I do not see what course can be adopted except to give the Justice full discretion.
The Executive in former cases did not hesitate to make parents amenable for offences of children. Would a course like that, in which fines might be imposed, not be much more effective?
Under the Children Act there is power to fine a parent for what a child does, and the Justice in this case would have had full power to impose a fine.
Has the Minister for Justice any idea of the value of the insulators destroyed in this case?
That does not matter.
Oh, does it not? Would I be correct in saying that at most it would not exceed £2?
I do not know how many were destroyed.
Was it for destroying £2 worth of insulators that a child was sentenced to five years?
Where does the Deputy get his information from?
Will the Minister consider the sentences if a petition is forwarded?
I have stated that a petition should be sent to the Minister for Education. The Minister for Education is in charge of industrial and reformatory schools. My Department does not deal with these matters at all.