asked the Minister for Justice if he will state the number of persons now held in custody without having been charged; if it is the intention of the Government to continue the policy of repeatedly arresting certain individuals, holding them in custody for short periods and then releasing them, and if so, why? Have any persons so arrested been held for periods longer than 24 hours' duration, and, if so, what legal authority have the police for such action?
Private Notice Question. - Arrests and Detentions.
The answer to the first part of the question is 28. In regard to the second part of the question, persons who by their behaviour give grounds for suspicion that they are engaged in a conspiracy to murder must realise that they cannot be allowed to pursue their activities without interference. The Government is aware of the existence of such a conspiracy, and it is its intention to take every possible step to frustrate the designs of the conspirators and to bring the guilty parties to justice. There is ample legal authority for any action taken in connection with the detention of suspected criminals.
How many persons have been detained for more than twenty-four hours, and what is the legal authority for it? Also, is the President aware that certain persons have been arrested seven and eight times within the last ten days? A party named Rooney, a party named Cusack, a party named Farrington, and a party named Rowe have been arrested several times—one party nine times, two parties eight times, and another party seven times— within the last ten days. If these parties are under suspicion, why are they released after some hours' detention and re-arrested? Is the President also aware that certain houses have been raided fourteen times within the last fifteen days? There is, for instance, the house of Mr. O'Donnell, which has been raided fourteen times within the last fifteen days. Doors have been smashed, locks broken, and no warrant has been produced on any occasion.
I am not in a position to say how many persons have been arrested for a period longer than twenty-four hours, the time allowed for getting information not being sufficient. I am aware that people have been arrested more than once, and I am prepared to accept the Deputy's statement that they have been arrested eight or nine times. I am not aware of the other matters referred to by the Deputy.
Is the President aware that one detective officer searched a certain house yesterday evening, and that he arrested two men whom he happened to find in the house. He said: "I am very lucky to-day; that brings the number up to forty." If the President is not aware of that fact, I am, and I know that these particular people who have been arrested have not been attached to any movement since the Civil War. There is no evidence to show that these people who have been arrested were in this conspiracy.
I am not aware that there is such a keen sense of humour amongst police officers as has been suggested by the Deputy.
I can give the name of the officer who said: "This will bring the number up to forty, and that will do." That is no joke.
Is it the intention of the Government by these acts to provoke further disorder in the country?
To prevent it.
You are going the best way towards provoking it. A number of people as well as myself are convinced that the Government are deliberately trying to provoke disorder for party purposes. These activities are designed for that purpose, and no other.
The provocation has been started by the other side, and the Government is taking the necessary steps to ensure that no such incidents as have occurred will occur again.
What was the provocation that was given in the case that I mentioned? These people have not touched anything for the last four or five years, and the detective officer said, "There are two here; that makes up forty."
I shall be pleased to get the particulars in that case, if the Deputy can inform me of the particulars.
The President said the provocation was given by the other side. If we accept that from him, surely he does not maintain that, even if that were shown, a Government ought to act illegally. I suppose he has some respect for the law—perhaps not much, as somebody beside me says—but does he stand up here to defend the illegal acts that have been taken every hour of the day during the past fortnight? At least, I am informed that these acts are illegal. I am not a legal authority. I am told that men have been arrested, kept ten or twenty or thirty or forty hours in custody and then released. They are only an hour out, or perhaps two hours, when they are arrested again. If there is a charge to be laid against these men, surely it ought to be formulated, and they ought to be brought before some court. Is it not bringing the law into great disrespect, from the President's point of view—he is supposed to have respect for the law— when his officials arrest men, bring no charge against them and allow them out after ten or twelve hours, only to arrest them again? At no time is a charge formulated against them. In some cases, I have come across statements made by people who were arrested that they were never asked any questions. They were arrested and held for days, and they were never asked a question of any kind. That is not the way that the law should be maintained, if it is to be maintained. If there are people who are suspected of crime of any kind, surely the ordinary procedure of the law ought to be adopted.
I should like to ask the President a question.
I admit that my question is a rather long one——
It is not a question at all.
I should like to ask if statements made to me are correct. The statement has been frequently made to me that persons have been arrested and re-arrested, and that no question has been put to them. I submit that is showing disrespect for the law.
Is the President aware that these arrests have resulted in several of the arrested persons losing their employment?
That is what the Government want?
These men have not been associated with political movements since the cessation of the Civil War. Is it to be understood that it is the definite policy of the Government to drive these men out of the country because they are known to be in sympathy with national ideals, while not definitely associated with any political movement? What I have stated can be proved. I have known cases where men who were definitely outside the political movement, and all other movements, lost their employment as the result of being arrested, released and re-arrested. Their employers have said: "We cannot have you here."
There is ample legal authority for any action taken in arresting these men——
And detaining them for twenty-four hours?
If the law has been violated in any way, there is a legal remedy, I suppose. The Deputy knows more about the law than I do.
Evidently.
As regards the question raised by Deputy Cooney, as I have said, my knowledge of the law is very small. I would venture to suggest that the Deputy would require to have information both as regards the conspiracy and as regards the individual to give a certificate of innocence to some of these people. I say that advisedly. The Deputy has said that these are men who have no political affiliations and who do not belong to any associations. The Government does not want to interfere with any persons who are not actively engaged in this conspiracy.
I should like to ask the President——
The President must be allowed to answer.
I want to ask the President——
The President must be permitted to answer the questions put.
I want to ask the President if the persons arrested are persons against whom the Government have no proof. If there is proof, why should they not be charged?
That question was debated here at some length the other day, and it was debated in a manner which, to my mind, will not conduce to public confidence. There was brought to the consideration of this question, on the one side, a rooted prejudice against the police forces and against the Government —and we expect, as a result of what transpires here, I presume, to inspire public confidence. I would hesitate to say that any impartial person, reading the report of the discussion that took place here a few days ago, could be convinced that there was any other desire than simply to hamper or to make difficult Government procedure in this case. This is a serious matter—a very serious matter. We are agreed that in respect of recent activities they are to be condemned by all sides. We have unfortunately got the sole responsibility of taking what we consider to be the steps necessary to deal with them. In the course of police activities in that connection certain action has been taken. It would appear to me, from what I have heard here, that every step taken by the police has been wrong. That is not the method of approach to the solution of a very difficult question. As I have said, we want no interference whatever with any innocent person in this connection. If there are innocent persons who are being interfered with, I am prepared to consider representations in respect of them.
The Dáil adjourned at 1.30 until Wednesday, 10th April, at 3 p.m.