On this motion I wish to call attention to a matter that I raised by question in the Dáil to-day. It might not have been necessary to raise it on the adjournment if the Minister for Finance, to whom my question had been addressed, was in his place at the time. In answer to my question which appeared upon the Order Paper and had reference to the case of the Revenue Commissioners v. Duggan, the Minister for Defence, who replied on behalf of the Minister for Finance, said that the amount in respect of which proceedings originally began was £187 1s. 0d. He said that the proceedings were not taken to recover this duty, but to recover penalties for the failure to pay several sums due, and that the Revenue Commissioners accepted a total penalty of £9,000, together with £187 1s. 0d. in respect of the duty outstanding and £650 to cover the cost of the proceedings, and that the Revenue Commissioners were advised by counsel and the Attorney-General that if the case were tried to a conclusion the total penalties that could be recovered would not exceed £9,000, and would not carry an award of costs. I asked as a supplementary question if the Minister would state (1) whether the defendant was charged with a criminal offence, (2) whether or not the proceedings were terminated by a settlement out of court, and (3) if so by what authority the State were enabled to settle a criminal offence.
With regard to the figures— taking newspaper reports for what they are worth—it was stated that 93 summonses were issued against Duggan; whether these were for mistakes or criminal offences, they were taken, at any rate, as offences under the Betting Law. As the law has been laid down under the Betting Act, the usual penalty is £500 inflicted by the District Justice for each offence, and the minimum penalty to which it can be reduced by the District Justice is £125 for each offence. I cannot follow the figures on that basis. If there were 93 summonses issued I cannot follow the figures as given by the Minister for Defence to-day. He said that, assuming that a £500 penalty could be imposed in each case, the total would be £46,500, and even on that basis £9,000 was neither a fair nor reasonable settlement. If you reduce that sum to a quarter, that is, if there were extraordinary mitigating circumstances, if the case was such that a person was ignorant or was a person who had only just started, having got a licence, and had no knowledge of the Betting Act, and no experience, and was in a small way of business, was absolutely ignorant and absolutely honest at the same time, it might then be possible to have the amount reduced in a case where such mitigating circumstances would arise.
Assuming all these circumstances were present in this case—perhaps they were; perhaps all the people connected with the case were very different from what the public know they are—it would be entirely different. Perhaps that was so. Perhaps the man concerned knew nothing of the Betting Acts, was in a small way of business, was likely to make errors, and so on, and, therefore, from that point of view he might be excused and the penalties might be mitigated to one-quarter. But assuming that was so, then the amount would be £11,625, that is, assuming the figures I got from the Minister for Defence are correct. He said that there were 93 summonses issued, so that the maximum penalty in that case would be £46,500 and a quarter of that would be £11,625.
It is a rather strange coincidence that as far back as the 28th of February certain Deputies on these benches received communications. One was from Northampton and it stated that a settlement was being attempted at that time and that the offer had got as far as £5,000. There were also rumours and suggestions in the air that if a settlement was arrived at certain people on this side of the House would not try to expose it. This information and these communications, naturally, would not have been taken much notice of by Deputies on this side of the House recognising that there was a criminal offence and that it was rather difficult in most States to compound a felony. I know that in revenue losses it is possible for the Revenue Commissioners to arrive at a settlement between the parties and that it is very often done. For example, in income tax cases where the liability is a civil liability and, also, I believe it is possible under the betting laws where the Revenue Commissioners sue for sums or find that duty has not been paid, but where they find there is no attempt at fraud, they do very often arrive at a settlement and accept certain payments in cash.
The answer given to-day by the Minister for Defence on behalf of the Minister for Finance does not convince me, because we have only to look round the country to find glaring cases where unfortunate people are doing time in jail for much less serious offences. There was a case in Waterford of a Mr. Eastwood who happened to be a few days late in making his returns, and against whom the State could not prove any fraud, or anything else, except that he had made a mistake through ignorance of the law or, perhaps, was negligent, but the State were not able to prove any dishonesty. He was fined the usual £125. He asked for time and leave to pay by instalments, but that was refused. While in negotiation afterwards he offered £50 down, but the answer of the State was to arrest him and take him from his home. There was no answer to the offer of the £50 as to whether they would take it or not. If we compare the circumstances of that case and the Duggan case, then what I have stated about mitigating circumstances does not apply so far as the public knows the facts in the latter case.
Everyone is conversant with the big business done by the individual concerned in the Duggan case, and knows that it was not to-day, or yesterday, that that business was started. We are not concerned with him as an individual. The point of view with which we are concerned is the attitude of the State to this particular case and to similar cases throughout the country. It was an extraordinary thing to find the Minister for Finance answering a question to-day and saying that counsel and the Attorney-General advised that this was a fair settlement. Does the Minister for Finance ask the House to believe that counsel and the Attorney-General had not all the papers before them before these proceedings were started? If my recollection is right these papers were seized and all the documents were taken out of the defendant's office, and it was on them the prosecution was founded. Do we take it that when the Attorney-General advised 93 summonses he had not got the correct information? Do we take it he looked so casually at the papers and advised so recklessly that 93 summonses should be taken out where he should not have advised that number? Did the Revenue Commissioners, having got all the documents, examine them carefully, and finding several cases in which they could succeed, issue summonses on each of these cases?
When this criminal offence has been compounded, does the Minister seriously ask the House to believe that counsel and the Attorney-General advised him it was a very good settlement? We have heard from time to time here a lot about good settlements, sometimes even with more vehemence and stronger language than that. Can the Minister point to any precedent for this? Remember, this was a criminal offence and if anybody infringed the laws to such an extent as to make himself liable to have 93 summonses against him—in other words, to have 93 charges flung against him—it might reasonably be considered whether that individual, whoever he was, should or should not be allowed to continue to hold his licence. After the State took from him £9,000, with certain provisions as to costs and certain provisions as to debts and duties outstanding, they allowed him to retain his licence. That also, strange to say, was mentioned in the correspondence which started last February in the negotiations going on in certain quarters with regard to this settlement. Will the Minister state when these negotiations with regard to the settlement started? Will he state whether these were taken up direct with the Revenue Commissioners? Will he state whether certain officials in the Revenue Department were opposed to any truck in the way of settlement? Will he state if the peculiar circumstances of the time, such as the North Dublin by-election, had anything to do with it? If not, can the Minister, by any precedent that has arisen heretofore, justify it? If he does not justify it, will he take some action with regard to people who have been harshly and unfairly treated and who have acted innocently in several cases throughout the country, as in the case in Waterford where a man was put to jail, while other persons who were in a bigger way of business and able to bring influence to bear have got off in this way? Is it because of the position and surroundings and the influences that certain people are able to bring to bear that these people are to be put in the position of being able to get out of their difficulties and get out of criminal offences while other people, unfortunate small bookmakers, must do a term in jail? Is not that the position?
I would like to have an explanation from the Minister, an explanation that will deal with the definite points that I have raised with regard to the attitude of the Attorney-General. The Attorney-General, in the first instance, advised these proceedings, and he afterwards advised that the Revenue Commissioners could not succeed in them. Seeing that the Attorney-General had all the papers of the defendant, he was in a position to prove the case. Secondly, is it the belief of the Minister, on the advice of the Attorney-General, that he could not have succeeded in these ninety-three summonses? If so, in how many was the Minister advised that he would fail? If the Minister was to succeed in a number of the summonses, on what grounds did the Attorney-General advise the Minister for Finance or the Revenue Commissioners that there were such mitigating circumstances that the District Justice would be bound to take cognisance of in reducing the fines from £500 in each case to £125? Is it not only in cases where there are very mitigating circumstances that that discretion is exercised by the District Justice? In view of all that, will the Minister state when and in what particular case such a precedent has been established, and whether in the future the practice is to be resorted to of bargaining where cases, in which criminal offences have been committed, have been taken into court and have been at trial for days before the District Justice, and then a settlement is arrived at outside the court, without any reference being made to the District Justice in the matter?
