With regard to amendment 7 in my name on the Order Paper, I do not propose to move it. Amendments 7 and 9 deal with practically the same subject. Amendment 9, in the name of Deputy Ruttledge, covers practically the same point that is dealt with in amendment 7. I would be satisfied if the discussion on the question were taken on amendment 9.
Public Business. - Juries (Protection) Bill, 1929—Committee (Resumed).
The Dáil went into Committee.
SECTION 3.
(1) Section 50 of the Principal Act shall not apply to a panel of jurors prepared for a sittings of the Central Criminal Court nor to a panel of jurors prepared for a sittings of a Judge of the Circuit Court for the trial of criminal issues, and in lieu thereof it is hereby enacted that the empanelling officer and the summoning officer shall treat every such panel as a confidential official document.
(2) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other enactment, no accused person shall be entitled as of right to a copy of the panel of jurors from which it is intended that the jury for his trial is to be drawn.
The position, therefore, is that a decision as to the right of an accused person to have a copy of the panel will be taken on amendment 9.
I move:
"To add at the end of sub-section (1) the words "save that every accused person, or his solicitor in the case of the trial of any such person, shall be entitled as of right to a copy of the panel of jurors from which it is intended that the jury for his trial is to be drawn."
That, I think, is a very important amendment. If the Bill in its present form were allowed to pass it would mean that a prisoner would be kept entirely in the dark as to the sort of jury that was to try him. He would know nothing of the personnel of the jury, or of any peculiar feelings or views the jury might have. It has always been recognised in this country, and I believe in every civilised country where they have any idea of law as the embodiment of justice to the subject, that the prisoner should be entitled to reasonable facilities in order to ensure that he should obtain a fair trial. The first time there appears to have been any interference with the jury system in this country was in the Courts of Justice Act, 1924. Prior to that an accused person was tried in his own county at the assizes in the ordinary way, or in the adjoining county at the winter assizes. The jury that tried him reflected the thought in the area from which the prisoner came, and it reflected the ideas of right and wrong in that area. The Minister for Justice laughs at that, but the Minister himself, I think, was one of the strongest exponents of what juries should think in particular areas. I often heard him eloquently and effectively orate to juries on their sense of justice and fair play, and that, knowing their sense of justice and their high moral character, they would allow certain prisoners the benefit of the doubt, and so on. Under the Courts of Justice Act, 1924, that power was taken away, and the Attorney-General in certain cases changed the venue to the Central Criminal Court here. Persons were brought up from the country and tried before a jury they knew very little about, by people who were far removed from the thought, feeling and conditions that may be peculiar to the area from which the accused person was brought.
That was the first reaction to be found in the present régime in this country, interfering with what should have been the elementary rights of justice in trying to give a prisoner a fair trial. There has also been an interference in the Juries Act of 1927. I think it is Section 57 which reduced the right of the prisoner to challenge from 20 to 5. It leaves the State with the power of unlimited challenge or stand-by, and it limits the unfortunate prisoner's right, which was very limited already, that is the power he had to challenge up to 20 or, if good cause were shown, with regard to any other juror that might be empanelled by the prosecutor. The prosecutor has unlimited right of challenge or stand-by, which the prisoner has not. That shows the importance of this amendment. It is merely to ensure that a prisoner should have the right to see who are the people who are trying him. Take, for example, a prisoner brought up from Kerry, or from any other part of the country. A jury is empanelled. The prosecutor knows all about them, as he has information from the Civic Guards, and he is told that certain people, perhaps, have certain sympathies, and for that reason they should not be on the jury, or vice versa. If the State are going to have unlimited right in that way, is it not reasonable that the prisoner should have those rights which the amendment proposes he should have?
If a man had a house insured and he was charged with burning that house, just imagine a director of an insurance company appearing on a jury to try that prisoner. The prisoner knows nothing about that and he is not given a copy of the panel beforehand. Does anyone think that in a case of that kind a fair trial could be got from a body of insurance directors in Dublin? We know that in many cases they have a feeling or a suspicion, if the house of an insured person is burned that the burning is not accidental. I only mention that as a case in point. Up to this a prisoner was held by the law to be entitled to every reasonable benefit of the doubt, and to every chance to secure a fair and impartial trial. That is taken away by this measure. He will not be allowed to know who the people who are to try him are, and who will be allowed to go on in order that the State can secure a conviction at any cost. It is not a provision that should meet with the approval of any person with any degree of fair-mindedness or justice. I do not think there is any member of the Dáil who will vote against this amendment who, if he were in the dock on a groundless charge, would not want to know the people who were trying him. It does not, perhaps, seem extraordinary that in this Bill such a provision should appear, considering the other extra provisions it contains. I submit that a prisoner is entitled to a fair trial. Every man should be considered innocent until he is proved guilty, and any person charged in court should be provided with a copy of the panel so that he could see that certain people, at any rate, would not be on the jury.
I support the principle of this amendment. The Minister himself, or somebody in supporting the Second Reading of this measure, asserted that the right of the accused to challenge was unimpaired by this Bill. I believe that statement was made, but I have not the exact quotation. If that is not the position it would be necessary, to secure that position, that the amendment should be passed. The Minister, speaking yesterday on this particular section of the Bill, referred to the indiscriminate publication of the jury panel. This amendment does not ask for indiscriminate publication of the jury panel. It asserts the right of the accused person to get a copy of the panel from which the jury will be drawn. I do not think we would be justified in our fears, or so-called fears, regarding the protection of juries, for which this Bill is designed, in going to the length of inflicting a probable injustice on other individuals, as is likely to happen if the accused person has no knowledge whatsoever of the panel from which the jury that is going to try him will be drawn. If he has not that knowledge, I hold that the right to challenge will undoubtedly be impaired.
Deputy Ruttledge quoted cases, and many other cases could be quoted where there would be undoubted prejudice, and where the accused would know that there would be prejudice—that is, of course, if he knew the person who made the statement. For instance, if I were charged with obtaining money under false pretences because I was malingering, and the Minister for Industry and Commerce happened to be a juryman, although I might not know him personally, if I knew he was the Minister for Industry and Commerce, I would be anxious to challenge him, knowing that he had already certain opinions on the point. There would be many similar cases in which the accused person would not be able to exercise there and then his right to challenge if he were confronted for the first time with individual jurymen. I suggest to the Minister that the Bill limits very considerably the power given in Section 50 of the Principal Act. The amendment only asks that the accused person should have supplied to him the panel from which the jury is drawn. That is a very reasonable amendment, and I cannot see how the Government can refuse what is, to my mind, elementary justice to a person who is going to stand his trial and deny him what he has a right to expect—a fair and impartial verdict by men who are not prejudiced one way or another against him. I hope the Minister will see the reasonableness of the amendment and accept it.
Deputy Ruttledge, in part of his speech, gave utterance to a most extraordinary expression of opinion—that the State was out to secure a conviction at any cost. A more false statement of the position which the State should take up, and which the State does in fact take, could not be made. It is as much the duty of the State to see that an innocent person is acquitted as it is the duty of the State to see that a guilty person is convicted. That is the proper spirit in which criminal trials should be conducted, and that is the spirit in which they are in fact conducted in this State. Deputy Ruttledge went off on what appeared to me to be rather a tangent, and stated that under the Courts of Justice Act now certain accused are sent up for trial to the Central Criminal Court. That is correct. But all cases are not sent up; only a comparatively small number are sent up. For instance, the Deputy took the example of a case of arson.
I did not take that as an example of a case being sent up to Dublin.
It sounded to me like that. In case the Deputy may have left any people under the same impression that he left me, though, of course, I accept the statement that he did not mean to convey that impression, arson is one of the cases which could be tried and is tried in the Circuit Court and not in the Central Criminal Court. The change is that in old times there were two classes of courts—the general Assize Court, which tried heavy cases, and the County Court, which tried much lighter classes of cases. The Assizes have been done away with altogether, and the jurisdiction which was exercised by the old Assize Court has now been divided between the Central Criminal Court and the Circuit Court; and the number of cases which must come up to the Central Criminal Court are comparatively few. The class of case is very limited indeed. I may say that in old times it was always possible to obtain a change of venue, as every Deputy is aware.
To come to the subject matter of the amendment, Deputy Ruttledge and, to a certain extent, Deputy O'Connell seemed to consider that unless a prisoner had a panel before him he could not be fairly tried. Deputy O'Connell said that there was no indiscriminate circulation of the jury panel suggested by this amendment. That is so. But by Deputy O'Connell's own amendment which he has now withdrawn, there was to be an indiscriminate circulation of the panel. His amendment was only to take out the first sub-section and leave the other two—that is to say, that under his amendment the panel need not be posted up in the courthouse, but could be obtained for half-a-crown. It was to that amendment that I referred. Let us come to this particular amendment. Is it true that a person cannot be fairly tried unless he has a panel? If that is the case, until the year 1871, except in cases of high treason, nobody in this country ever received a fair trial, because it was only in 1871 that a prisoner received the right for the first time in this country to get a copy of the panel. In England at present the law is exactly the same. In England at present a prisoner being tried for felony or misdemeanour, or any other offence except high treason or misprision of treason, is not entitled to a copy of the panel. So that, if Deputy O'Connell's contention is right, in England nobody is ever fairly tried.
Mr. O'Connell
I should like to correct the Minister. I do not think that I said he could not get a fair trial. I said that the right to challenge was distinctly impaired. That was my contention. I did not allege that it would not be possible to get a fair trial. I said it was possible to get an unfair trial, and that the right of challenge which the accused has now would certainly be impaired.
The right of challenge of five persons which he has now stands completely unimpaired. He has got exactly, as far as the method of challenge is concerned, if this Bill becomes law, but not as to numbers, the same right as anybody tried in England or anybody tried in this country before 1871. That is perfectly clear English law laid down in the case of the King v. Dowling, when two judges decided that in a case of felony the prisoner was not entitled to a copy of the panel, and that is the position in which he is placed now.
Looking at the matter from another point of view, everybody knows that in general, all through the country, where the person accused was a person of some importance or had any influence or money there was really considerable canvassing of the jury, that days before, he could obtain a copy of the panel, go round and talk to the jurymen and canvass them, and no matter how guilty, he could, by exercising influence, through either fear or favour, on the jury, obtain his acquittal. It was a bad system by which an influential person should be able by canvassing to obtain his acquittal. Take the conditions at the present day, when, as we know, a juryman has been murdered and others attempted to be terrorised, and that terrorism of jurors has received support and approbation from the non-official organ of the Fianna Fáil Party—in these circumstances, is it safe or right in the interests of jurymen that a panel should be given to any accused person? What would happen if the accused person who got the panel belonged to this murderous association? He would simply take copies of the panel and circularise them amongst any persons he liked. He could get the names and numbers of the jury taken down and have a complete list of every juryman who served in every case in order that these unfortunate jurymen might be marked down for assassination by his friends.
It may be said that the jury panel should be given to the solicitor for the defence. I am afraid that that would be perfectly impossible, and that, as far as canvassing jurymen is concerned, and as far as giving information to this association is concerned, we could not trust the secrecy of the offices of solicitors. It would be impossible to do so. The solicitor himself might be all right, counsel engaged in the case might be all right, but you could not say that every clerk in the office was all right, and not merely all right but that every clerk in the office, or every solicitor or counsel, for that matter, would be duly careful and discreet. Our duty here is to see that all prisoners receive a fair trial. A fair trial does not mean a trial that will eventuate in the acquittal of the guilty person. A fair trial means a trial upon which a man, if guilty upon the evidence before the court, will be found guilty; if innocent according to the evidence before the court, will be found innocent; and if there is doubt, will receive the benefit of that doubt. That is a fair trial, and that is what we wish to preserve. We wish to see that there is empanelled a jury that will do justice between the State and the accused, between the community of people in this Irish Free State and those amongst them who unfortunately are addicted to crime. That is our object, and that object, I submit to the House, will be secured by this Bill. It is wrong, entirely wrong, that jurymen should be subjected to unnecessary danger and unnecessary risk. I ask the House to reject this amendment.
The Minister for Justice has informed the House of something which I think, though probably subconsciously in the knowledge of every member of this House, is certainly not in practice impressed upon them by experience, and that is that it is the duty of the prosecutor to see that the evidence is put as fairly for the accused as it is for the accuser; that it is the duty of the prosecutor to bring out in favour of the accused all possible evidence in his favour, and to put into the possession of the accused and his counsel every possible information and facility which would enable them to make a legitimate defence. In practice, as we know, especially in political cases, you have in the court two protagonists —defence and attack.
It is part of the knowledge of this House and of every man in this country that over a very considerable period of years the prosecutor has been a prosecutor—the "hanging attorney" is a perfectly common expression. We know the meaning of it. Peter the Packer was a famous and well-known entity. If it was true that, in fact and in practice, the prosecutor was out, in cases of this kind, to see that the evidence was fairly put before the judge, if it could be accepted in practice that the whole machinery behind the courts was consciously directed towards obtaining a fair trial, if it could be understood that all the evidence of all the witnesses produced by the Crown——
May I inform the Deputy that the Crown does not prosecute in this country. It is the people of the Irish Free State who prosecute.
If it could be assumed that all that evidence was produced specifically for that purpose and with that intention, it really would not matter much whether you had a jury at all—if you assume that perfect state and condition. The whole question is whether there is behind the administration in relation to cases of this kind that organisation, or whether we have to judge the machinery of juries as a possible protection against the nonexistence of that attitude of mind. The Minister for Justice has set out as a standard of conduct for the prosecutor what might be taken, word for word almost, from a manual of military law in relation to the duties of a prosecutor at a court-martial. He had that duty— the specific duty of seeing that the evidence was put for the accused as fairly as for the prosecution. I have had the experience of being openly censured and threatened in court for attempting to carry out that provision; I have had the actual experience of producing evidence which I afterwards found out was faked against the accused.
In this country?
No, I am speaking generally. I am speaking in relation to the carrying out of that provision.
The Deputy is not speaking about amendment 9.
Yes, I am.
The Deputy is not speaking about amendment 9. He is speaking about something quite different.
I am speaking to the point which was put by the Minister for Justice, that in practice we must assume that the prosecutor will carry out what he said was his duty —to see that everything that can be said for the accused is said, and that all the evidence that can be produced for the accused is produced. I produce myself in evidence against that.
The Minister stated his view of what the prosecutor does. The Deputy may state the contrary if he likes, but then he must come to the amendment.
Because I do not believe that in practice under the present administration State prosecutors will be called upon in cases of this kind to carry out their duties in that spirit, I look infinitely more critically upon the provisions of this Bill than I would if I did believe that they would carry out their duties in that respect. The Minister says that if we pass his Bill we will get back to the splendid condition of affairs which existed in 1871. That is the argument—we would be no worse than in 1871. Fifty years of development in the criminal law, fifty years of increased respect for the rights of the subject, counts for nothing! Let us get back, says the Minister for Justice, to the palmy days of 1871. Why not get back to trial by fire and water? If age be the qualification, by all means let us do so. If things are good because they are old, let us get back to the trial of witches, and things of that kind. A fair trial on the evidence before the court, as produced under the influence and the inspiration of an administration which has been caught out by the courts of this country——
The Deputy has been speaking for ten minutes without saying one word about this amendment.
There may be upon these panels personal enemies of the accused; there may be upon these panels men who will have interests other than those of the accused, but he must not be told that. Assume for a moment that you had a case in which some member of the Cumann na nGaedheal Party had made the accusation that has been made by the Minister for Agriculture, that we upon this side of the House——
The Deputy cannot go into that point. The Deputy must confine himself to the amendment, without bringing us back to accusations made about Parties in the House. We will have no more of that on this Bill, on this or any other stage.
Then shall we say we will take the case of any man who has been accused of a crime in relation to which a juror has publicly expressed his opinion before the trial. As far as I can see, there is no means whatever of dealing with that. Under this Bill it is assumed that every accused and his solicitor is prepared to associate himself with and to help those who desire to intimidate juries. That is the assumption behind the whole of it. You cannot give to any accused and you cannot give to any solicitor in Ireland a jury panel without giving it to someone who is prepared directly to associate himself with people who desire to assassinate jurors. That is a very low estimate of the profession and, I think, a very low estimate even of the criminal classes. This is to give protection to jurors. Now Deputy J.X. Murphy said deliberately in this House that he did not believe it would give protection to jurors, that it would actually increase their danger, and personally I am of the same opinion. I know of a case where the head of one secret service had as private secretary the wife of the head of the secret service on the other side.
Third warning. The Deputy is not saying anything about the amendment.
It is possible, under conditions of infinitely greater aggravation than those which would be represented by an exposed panel, to put into the hands of those people who are supposed to be anxious to assassinate jurors the actual information, and there would be a greater temptation to do so than there would be under present conditions. This Bill is a direct incitement to people to discover information which they would get from the panel, and to find some alternative means than the means they now have, due to the exposure of the panel, because, in my opinion——
This amendment is not concerned with the exposure of the panel.
——that does increase the danger, and because it is not in itself a desirable thing I ask the House to vote for the amendment.
Amendment put.
The Committee divided. Tá: 54; Níl, 64.
Tá
- Aiken, Frank.
- Anthony, Richard.
- Blaney, Neal.
- Boland, Patrick.
- Bourke, Daniel.
- Brady, Seán.
- Briscoe, Robert.
- Broderick, Henry.
- Buckley, Daniel.
- Carney, Frank.
- Cassidy, Archie J.
- Coburn, James.
- Colbert, James.
- Colohan, Hugh.
- Cooney, Eamon.
- Corkery, Dan.
- Corish, Richard.
- Crowley, Fred. Hugh.
- Crowley, Tadhg.
- Davin, William.
- Doyle, Edward.
- Everett, James.
- Fahy, Frank.
- Flinn, Hugo.
- Fogarty, Andrew.
- French, Seán.
- Gorry, Patrick J.
- Goulding, John.
- Houlihan, Patrick.
- Jordan, Stephen.
- Kennedy, Michael Joseph.
- Kent, William R.
- Kerlin, Frank.
- Killilea, Mark.
- Kilroy, Michael.
- Lemass, Seán F.
- McEllistrim, Thomas.
- MacEntee, Seán.
- Moore, Séamus.
- Morrissey, Daniel.
- Mullins, Thomas.
- O'Connell, Thomas J.
- O'Dowd, Patrick Joseph.
- O'Kelly, Seán T.
- O'Leary, William.
- O'Reilly, Matthew.
- O'Reilly, Thomas.
- Powell, Thomas P.
- Ruttledge, Patrick J.
- Ryan, James.
- Sexton, Martin.
- Tubridy, John.
- Walsh, Richard.
- Ward, Francis C.
Níl
- Aird, William P.
- Alton, Ernest Henry.
- Beckett, James Walter.
- Bennett, George Cecil.
- Blythe, Ernest.
- Bourke, Séamus A.
- Brennan, Michael.
- Brodrick, Seán.
- Byrne, John Joseph.
- Carey, Edmund.
- Collins-O'Driscoll, Mrs. Margt.
- Conlon, Martin.
- Connolly, Michael P.
- Cosgrave, William T.
- Craig, Sir James.
- Crowley, James.
- Daly, John.
- Davis, Michael.
- De Loughrey, Peter.
- Doherty, Eugene.
- Dolan, James N.
- Doyle, Peadar Seán.
- Duggan, Edmund John.
- Dwyer, James.
- Egan, Barry M.
- Esmonde, Osmond Thos. Grattan.
- Fitzgerald, Desmond.
- Fitzgerald-Kenney, James.
- Good, John.
- Haslett, Alexander.
- Hassett, John J.
- Heffernan, Michael R.
- Hennessy, Michael Joseph.
- Hennessy, Thomas.
- Henry, Mark.
- Hogan, Patrick (Galway).
- Holohan, Richard.
- Kelly, Patrick Michael.
- Law, Hugh Alexander.
- Leonard, Patrick.
- Lynch, Finian.
- Mathews, Arthur Patrick.
- McDonogh, Martin.
- McFadden, Michael Og.
- McGilligan, Patrick.
- Mongan, Joseph W.
- Mulcahy, Richard.
- Murphy, James E.
- Myles, James Sproule.
- Nolan, John Thomas.
- O'Connell, Richard.
- O'Connor, Bartholomew.
- O'Donovan, Timothy Joseph.
- O'Hanlon, John F.
- O'Higgins, Thos.
- O'Mahony, Dermot Gun.
- O'Reilly, John J.
- O'Sullivan, John Marcus.
- Shaw, Patrick W.
- Sheehy, Timothy (West Cork).
- Thrift, William Edward.
- Vaughan, Daniel.
- White, Vincent Joseph.
- Wolfe, George.
Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Briscoe and Flinn; Níl: Deputies Duggan and P.S. Doyle.
Amendment declared lost.
I move:—
To insert at the end of the section a new sub-section as follows:—
"Every accused person shall be entitled as of right to apply to and may, if the Judge is satisfied, obtain from any Judge of the High Court or Supreme Court an order directed to the summoning officer to supply him or his solicitor with a copy of the panel of jurors from which it is intended that the jury for his trial is to be drawn."
The amendment intends that where a very special case may arise an accused person may be entitled to apply to a judge for an order for a copy of the panel. I do not think the Minister for Justice can have any serious objection to that. It leaves the matter in the hands of judges appointed by the Executive Council where there are special circumstances, so that they can, in their discretion, direct certain publication, to the accused person or his solicitor, of the jury panel. I do not think the Minister can argue that a judge could err in a case of that kind. The State counsel will be there to resist the application if it is decided to resist it, and will be able to put that point of view before the judge, who can exercise his discretion. Seeing that the Minister almost voted for us on the last amendment, getting as far as the barrier, I hope we will succeed in getting him to accept this amendment or to vote with us.
I cannot accept this amendment. I think the next one, amendment 12, except for a couple of words, "unless good cause to the contrary is shown," is the same. The Deputy is of course aware that in every case a panel is struck it will try, not one prisoner, but a very considerable number of prisoners. The one panel lasts for many days. For instance, supposing it is a Circuit Court, every person who is tried at that particular sitting of the Circuit Court is tried by a jury drawn from the same panel.
In the same way in the Central Criminal Court there is one, or maybe if it is a very long sitting, there are two panels from which they are drawn. There might be a particular case in which it would be unobjectionable that the particular solicitor should have a copy of the panel for his particular case; still that panel would not be the panel for his particular case only. It would be the panel for every other case that was going to be tried, and you could not have an absolute certainty that that panel would not get published. In a solicitor's office a panel would naturally pass through the hands of a great number of persons. It does not say that the solicitor or anyone in his office should wish that that panel would be published. If it were known that the solicitor had the panel you may be certain that very great efforts would be made to get it. Possibly his office would be raided. Certainly considerable efforts would be made to get the panel, and the main object of this Bill is that the panel shall not be available in any way to persons who would either wish to canvass, intimidate or murder jurymen or in any way attempt to persuade them to violate their oaths. The object of the Bill being that I do not think that with safety the number of persons through whose hands the panel would pass could be enlarged.
If it were a matter of natural justice that a prisoner should receive the panel, or if it even were a thing which was in itself highly desirable that the person should receive the panel, that the receiving of the panel is to be taken as the normal and not as the abnormal, then there would be something in Deputy Ruttledge's contention, but I cannot accept that. I cannot see why the possession of the panel is necessary for the fair defence or the fair challenge of prisoners. I myself, as Deputy Ruttledge informed the House a short time ago, defended a great number of prisoners. In a great number of cases I saw the solicitor for the defence did not go to the trouble of getting a panel at all. He simply challenged persons whose appearance he knew if he challenged anybody. That is well known. Of course, I had not Deputy Flinn's experience. I never had the opportunity of prosecuting anybody. In that I must bow to him, but I am perfectly convinced that to get a fair trial, that is, with the scales not loaded on either side, a copy of the panel is not necessary for the defence.
Amendment put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 50; Níl, 67.
Tá
- Aiken, Frank.
- Anthony, Richard.
- Blaney, Neal.
- Boland, Patrick.
- Brady, Seán.
- Briscoe, Robert.
- Broderick, Henry.
- Buckley, Daniel.
- Carney, Frank.
- Cassidy, Archie J.
- Coburn, James.
- Colohan, Hugh.
- Cooney, Eamon.
- Corkery, Dan.
- Corish, Richard.
- Crowley, Fred. Hugh.
- Doyle, Edward.
- Everett, James.
- Fahy, Frank.
- Flinn, Hugo.
- Fogarty, Andrew.
- French, Seán.
- Gorry, Patrick J.
- Goulding, John.
- Houlihan, Patrick.
- Jordan, Stephen.
- Kennedy, Michael Joseph.
- Kent, William R.
- Kerlin, Frank.
- Killilea, Mark.
- Kilroy, Michael.
- Lemass, Seán F.
- McEllistrim, Thomas.
- MacEntee, Seán.
- Moore, Séamus.
- Morrissey, Daniel.
- Mullins, Thomas.
- O'Connell, Thomas J.
- O'Dowd, Patrick Joseph.
- O'Kelly, Seán T.
- O'Leary, William.
- O'Reilly, Matthew.
- O'Reilly, Thomas.
- Powell, Thomas P.
- Ruttledge, Patrick J.
- Ryan, James.
- Sexton, Martin.
- Tubridy, John.
- Walsh, Richard.
- Ward, Francis C.
Níl
- Aird, William P.
- Alton, Ernest Henry.
- Beckett, James Walter.
- Blythe, Ernest.
- Bourke, Séamus A.
- Brennan, Michael.
- Brodrick, Seán.
- Byrne, John Joseph.
- Carey, Edmund.
- Collins-O'Driscoll, Mrs. Margt.
- Conlon, Martin.
- Connolly, Michael P.
- Cosgrave, William T.
- Craig, Sir James.
- Crowley, James.
- Daly, John.
- Davis, Michael.
- De Loughrey, Peter.
- Doherty, Eugene.
- Dolan, James N.
- Doyle, Peadar Seán.
- Duggan, Edmund John.
- Dwyer, James.
- Egan, Barry M.
- Esmonde, Osmond Thos. Grattan.
- Fitzgerald, Desmond.
- Fitzgerald-Kenney, James.
- Good, John.
- Haslett, Alexander.
- Hassett, John J.
- Heffernan, Michael R.
- Hennessy, Michael Joseph.
- Hennessy, Thomas.
- Henry, Mark.
- Hogan, Patrick (Galway).
- Holohan, Richard.
- Jordan, Michael.
- Kelly, Patrick Michael.
- Law, Hugh Alexander.
- Leonard, Patrick.
- Lynch, Finian.
- Mathews, Arthur Patrick.
- McDonogh, Martin.
- McFadden, Michael Og.
- McGilligan, Patrick.
- Mongan, Joseph W.
- Mulcahy, Richard.
- Murphy, James E.
- Murphy, Joseph Xavier.
- Myles, James Sproule.
- Nally, Martin Michael.
- Nolan, John Thomas.
- O'Connor, Bartholomew.
- O'Donovan, Timothy Joseph.
- O'Hanlon, John F.
- O'Higgins, Thomas.
- O'Mahony, Dermot Gun.
- O'Reilly, John J.
- O'Sullivan, Gearoid.
- Rice, Vincent.
- Shaw, Patrick W.
- Sheehy, Timothy (West Cork).
- Thrift, William Edward.
- Tierney, Michael.
- Vaughan, Daniel.
- White, Vincent Joseph.
- Wolfe, George.
Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Flinn and Briscoe; Níl: Deputies Duggan and P.S. Doyle.
Amendment declared lost.
Question—"That Section 3 stand part of the Bill"—put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 67; Níl, 50.
Tá
- Aird, William P.
- Alton, Ernest Henry.
- Beckett, James Walter.
- Bourke, Séamus A.
- Brennan, Michael.
- Brodrick, Seán.
- Byrne, John Joseph.
- Carey, Edmund.
- Collins-O'Driscoll, Mrs. Margt.
- Conlon, Martin.
- Connolly, Michael P.
- Cosgrave, William T.
- Craig, Sir James.
- Crowley, James.
- Daly, John.
- Davis, Michael.
- De Loughrey, Peter.
- Doherty, Eugene.
- Dolan, James N.
- Doyle, Peadar Seán.
- Duggan, Edmund John.
- Dwyer, James.
- Egan, Barry M.
- Esmonde, Osmond Thos. Grattan.
- Fitzgerald, Desmond.
- Fitzgerald-Kenney, James.
- Good, John.
- Haslett, Alexander.
- Hassett, John J.
- Heffernan, Michael R.
- Hennessy, Michael Joseph.
- Hennessy, Thomas.
- Henry, Mark.
- Hogan, Patrick (Galway).
- Holohan, Richard.
- Jordan, Michael.
- Kelly, Patrick Michael.
- Keogh, Myles.
- Law, Hugh Alexander.
- Leonard, Patrick.
- Lynch, Finian.
- Mathews, Arthur Patrick.
- McDonogh, Martin.
- McFadden, Michael Og.
- McGilligan, Patrick.
- Mongan, Joseph W.
- Mulcahy, Richard.
- Murphy, James E.
- Murphy, Joseph Xavier.
- Myles, James Sproule.
- Nally, Martin Michael.
- Nolan, John Thomas.
- O'Connor, Bartholomew.
- O'Donovan, Timothy Joseph.
- O'Hanlon, John F.
- O'Higgins, Thomas.
- O'Mahony, Dermot Gun.
- O'Reilly, John J.
- O'Sullivan, Gearoid.
- Rice, Vincent.
- Shaw, Patrick W.
- Sheehy, Timothy (West. Cork).
- Thrift, William Edward.
- Tierney, Michael.
- Vaughan, Daniel.
- White, Vincent Joseph.
- Wolfe, George.
Níl
- Aiken, Frank.
- Anthony, Richard.
- Blaney, Neal.
- Boland, Patrick.
- Brady, Seán.
- Briscoe, Robert.
- Broderick, Henry.
- Buckley, Daniel.
- Carney, Frank.
- Cassidy, Archie J.
- Coburn, James.
- Colohan, Hugh.
- Cooney, Eamon.
- Corkery, Dan.
- Corish, Richard.
- Crowley, Fred. Hugh.
- Doyle, Edward.
- Everett, James.
- Fahy, Frank.
- Flinn, Hugo.
- Fogarty, Andrew.
- French, Seán.
- Gorry, Patrick J.
- Goulding, John.
- Houlihan, Patrick.
- Jordan, Stephen.
- Kennedy, Michael Joseph.
- Kent, William R.
- Kerlin, Frank.
- Killilea, Mark.
- Kilroy, Michael.
- Lemass, Seán F.
- McEllistrim, Thomas.
- MacEntee, Seán.
- Moore, Séamus.
- Morrissey, Daniel.
- Mullins, Thomas.
- O'Connell, Thomas J.
- O'Dowd, Patrick Joseph.
- O'Kelly, Seán T.
- O'Leary, William.
- O'Reilly, Matthew.
- O'Reilly, Thomas.
- Powell, Thomas P.
- Ruttledge, Patrick J.
- Ryan, James.
- Sexton, Martin.
- Tubridy, John.
- Walsh, Richard.
- Ward, Francis C.
Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Duggan and P.S. Doyle; Níl: Deputies Flinn and Briscoe.
Question declared carried.
SECTION 4.
Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in the Principal Act, the following provisions shall apply to and have effect at every sittings of the Central Criminal Court and every sittings of a Judge of the Circuit Court for the trial of criminal issues, that is to say:—
(a) On every day of such sittings on which the registrar of the Court is required by the Principal Act to call over a panel (whether original or supplemental) of jurors under Section 46 or under Section 47 of the Principal Act, such registrar shall attend in the Court for one half-hour immediately before the hour appointed for the commencement of the sitting of the Court on that day and it shall be lawful for every person who is required by law to attend the Court on that day as a juror to attend before such registrar during the said half-hour and request such registrar to record his attendance and upon such request being so made to him such registrar shall record in such manner as he thinks fit such attendance of such person;
(b) When calling over in pursuance of Section 46 or sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section 47 of the Principal Act the names of the jurors entered on a panel (whether original or supplemental) of jurors, the registrar shall not call the name of any such juror whose attendance he has previously recorded under the foregoing paragraph of this section on that day unless he has reason to believe that such juror has since his attendance was so recorded left the Court and not returned thereto, and whenever the registrar refrains under this paragraph from calling the name of a juror he shall take such steps in relation to such juror as he would be required by the Principal Act to take if the name of such juror had been called and such juror had answered thereto;
(c) No person shall be admitted to or be present in the Court while the proceedings directed by Section 46 of the Principal Act or the proceedings directed by sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section 47 of that Act or the proceedings directed by paragraph (a) of this section are being had (whether in relation to an original or to a supplemental panel) save only the Judge presiding at the sittings, the officers of the Court, members of the Gárda Síochána on duty in the Court, and persons who have been summoned to attend the Court as jurors at such sittings, but nothing in this paragraph shall be construed as requiring the presence of the judge while the proceedings directed by paragraph (a) of this section are being had;
(d) Save while the proceedings directed by Section 46 of the Principal Act or the proceedings directed by sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section 47 of that Act or the proceedings directed by paragraph (a) of this section are being had, every person attending the Court as a juror shall (whether he has or has not been sworn as a juror) be called, addressed, and referred to for all purposes in the Court solely by the number by which he is distinguished on the panel of jurors from which he is drawn and no such person shall be called, addressed, or referred to in the Court by his name nor shall the address or description of any such person be called or mentioned in the Court.
I move amendment 13:
To delete all words after the word "Act," line 4, down to the word "issues," line 7, and substitute therefor the words: "any two Judges of the High Court may on the application of the Attorney-General, and on being satisfied that sufficient cause exists for so doing, by order direct that the following provisions shall apply to and have effect at any sittings of the Central Criminal Court, and any sittings of a Judge of the Circuit Court for the trial of criminal issues."
The provisions set out in Section 4 are very far-reaching, and it is with a view to controlling the indiscriminate application of these provisions that I move this amendment. It is only necessary to read the subsequent paragraphs in Section 4 to realise how drastic are the provisions that are provided under this section. A lot might be said with regard to this amendment, but we are taking up the attitude on this side of the House, since the guillotine has been imposed, and since we are not getting reasonable time to discuss these amendments, that, at any rate, we must get on record our attitude with regard to the different sections of this Bill. There is a good deal to be said with regard to this section and the substitution therefor of my amendment. I do not see what objection can be put forward against my amendment. The Judges have powers, and I do not know whether the Minister is of opinion that they cannot be trusted. If the Minister has any trust in his Judiciary there is no difficulty whatever in accepting this amendment. If he has not trust in his Judiciary, then that is another matter.
I deprecate that statement about the Minister for Justice and the Judges. It is not a fair statement, and it is one the Deputy should not make. It is some time since I intervened in debate, and I do not like to intervene now; but the statement made by Deputy Ruttledge is one that should not have been made. Deputy Hugo Flinn has referred to the Deputies on this side as deaf, dumb-driven beasts.
Deputy Hugo Flinn has not said a word on this section. Neither, indeed, has the Deputy.
I will not say anything at all.
That would be an admirable solution.
What Deputy Ruttledge said is not at all reasonable or fair. That is what I want to say before I sit down.
The suggestion here is that there should be, before the sitting of every Circuit Court and before every sitting of the Central Court, a special application made to the Judge. That application should be made before the provisions of Section 4 would come into operation. That is not an amendment that commends itself to me. Section 4 deals with a certain state of things which we know to exist. It is inserted in this Bill for the purpose of protecting jurymen and for the purpose of protecting witnesses. We know there is a conspiracy on foot to prevent witnesses giving evidence against accused persons, and we know that there is a conspiracy working to prevent jurymen, upon their oaths, making fair deliverances between the State and the accused. We know that there is this conspiracy in existence to drive jurymen, by intimidation, into committing perjury. Nobody in the House is doubtful about it, and every Party in the House knows that it exists. I do not believe a single one of the Deputies opposite would venture to say that no such conspiracy exists. If it exists, why not recognise it, and, not shutting your eyes to it, act on it? That is precisely what we are doing. We are acting upon it. Without going to court or anywhere else, we know that it is there, and we purpose putting these provisions into force for the protection of jurymen.
The Minister stated there was a conspiracy both to intimidate witnesses and jurors, and that no one would think of denying it, and that no one would think of refusing protection. What protection has he given to witnesses?
Question:—"That the words proposed to be deleted stand part of the Bill"—put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 69; Níl, 54.
Tá
- Aird, William P.
- Alton, Ernest Henry.
- Beckett, James Walter.
- Bennett, George Cecil.
- Blythe, Ernest.
- Bourke, Séamus A.
- Brennan, Michael.
- Brodrick, Seán.
- Byrne, John Joseph.
- Carey, Edmund.
- O'Collins-O'Driscoll, Mrs. Margt.
- Conlon, Martin.
- Connolly, Michael P.
- Cosgrave, William T.
- Craig, Sir James.
- Crowley, James.
- Daly, John.
- Davis, Michael.
- De Loughrey, Peter.
- Doherty, Eugene.
- Dolan, James N.
- Doyle, Peadar Seán.
- Duggan, Edmund John.
- Dwyer, James.
- Egan, Barry M.
- Esmonde, Osmond Thos. Grattan.
- Fitzgerald, Desmond.
- Fitzgerald-Kenney, James.
- Good, John.
- Gorey, Denis J.
- Haslett, Alexander.
- Hassett, John J.
- Heffernan, Michael R.
- Hennessy, Thomas.
- Henry, Mark.
- Holohan, Richard.
- Jordan, Michael.
- Kelly, Patrick Michael.
- Keogh, Myles.
- Law, Hugh Alexander.
- Leonard, Patrick.
- Lynch, Finian.
- Mathews, Arthur Patrick.
- McFadden, Michael Og.
- McGilligan, Patrick.
- Mongan, Joseph W.
- Mulcahy, Richard.
- Murphy, James E.
- Murphy, Joseph Xavier.
- Myles, James Sproule.
- Nally, Martin Michael.
- Nolan, John Thomas.
- O'Connell, Richard.
- O'Connor, Bartholomew.
- O'Donovan, Timothy Joseph.
- O'Hanlon, John F.
- O'Higgins, Thomas.
- O'Mahony, Dermot Gun.
- O'Reilly, John J.
- O'Sullivan, Gearoid.
- O'Sullivan, John Marcus.
- Rice, Vincent.
- Shaw, Patrick W.
- Sheehy, Timothy (West Cork).
- Thrift, William Edward.
- Tierney, Michael.
- Vaughan, Daniel.
- White, Vincent Joseph.
- Wolfe, George.
Níl
- Aiken, Frank.
- Anthony, Richard.
- Blaney, Neal.
- Boland, Patrick.
- Bourke, Daniel.
- Brady, Seán.
- Briscoe, Robert.
- Broderick, Henry.
- Buckley, Daniel.
- Carney, Frank.
- Cassidy, Archie J.
- Coburn, James.
- Colbert, James.
- Colohan, Hugh.
- Cooney, Eamon.
- Corkery, Dan.
- Corish, Richard.
- Crowley, Fred. Hugh.
- Crowley, Tadhg.
- Davin, William.
- Doyle, Edward.
- Everett, James.
- Fahy, Frank.
- Flinn, Hugo.
- Fogarty, Andrew.
- French, Seán.
- Gorry, Patrick J.
- Goulding, John.
- Houlihan, Patrick.
- Jordan, Stephen.
- Kennedy, Michael Joseph.
- Kent, William R.
- Kerlin, Frank.
- Killilea, Mark.
- Kilroy, Michael.
- Lemass, Seán F.
- McEllistrim, Thomas.
- MacEntee, Seán.
- Moore, Séamus.
- Morrissey, Daniel.
- Mullins, Thomas.
- O'Connell, Thomas J.
- O'Dowd, Patrick Joseph.
- O'Kelly, Seán T.
- O'Leary, William.
- O'Reilly, Matthew.
- O'Reilly, Thomas.
- Powell, Thomas P.
- Ruttledge, Patrick J.
- Ryan, James.
- Sexton, Martin.
- Tubridy, John.
- Walsh, Richard.
- Ward, Francis J.
Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Duggan and P.S. Doyle.
Question declared carried.
Níl: Deputies Flinn and Briscoe.
Amendment 14 is consequential upon amendment 13. Amendments 15, 18, 21 and 24 aim at deleting paragraphs containing the provisions of the section. Since the Committee has decided that there shall be provisions, I think these amendments cannot be moved. The next amendment, therefore, is amendment 16.
Amendment 18 relates only to the deletion of paragraph (b). Amendment 13 only proposes to delete all the words after the word "Act," line 4, down to the word "issues," line 7. It does not propose to delete anything in paragraph (b). Therefore, I submit that you ought to take an amendment to delete that paragraph.
The Committee has decided that the following words shall stand: "the following provisions shall apply to and have effect, etc." That is, the Committee has decided that there shall be provisions, not necessarily perhaps in the form now in the section, though that contention could be made, but that there shall be provisions. I am adopting the view that the provisions are open to amendment but not to deletion.
Not necessarily all the provisions contained in the section.
If that were the case I think that all the amendments would have to be put. The amendments dealing with the alteration of the provisions are in order but the amendments dealing with deletion are not.
This section is set out in paragraphs rather than in sub-sections. If it had been set out like the other sections we would be entitled to deal with them as sub-sections 1, 2 and 3 instead of paragraphs (a), (b), (c). While the amendments that stand in my name dealing with certain of these paragraphs try to improve them, it would be much more desirable from our point of view if these paragraphs were deleted in the first instance. If we fail to delete them it is our desire to improve them so far as possible. If you agree to put these paragraphs in the same way as sub-sections would be put, we would be satisfied.
Sub-sections are never put separately. I have already refused to accept an amendment in Committee to delete a sub-section which in effect would be tantamount to deleting the section. In any event, I find the section in this particular form. It seems to me that the decision now taken means that there shall be provisions, not necessarily, as I have already stated, the provisions which follow in the Bill in the terms in which they are set forth in the Bill. I will take amendments to alter the provisions, but not to delete them.
I respectfully submit that what the House has decided is that these provisos may come into force but they are only to come into force on the fiat of two judges of the High Court.
The House has decided that the words at the beginning of the paragraph shall stand. I have ruled that I will not accept an amendment to delete the paragraph, but I will accept one to alter it. A division can be taken against the section.
I move amendment No. 16 as follows:—
"To add at the end of paragraph (a), line 21, the words "and the judge shall satisfy himself that such person is in court."
This amendment tries to tighten up the Bill out of its present loose and peculiar form. It is only an attempt to make the Bill more rigid in that particular way, so far as the protection of the individual is concerned, and not to leave it in its present vague and indefinite shape.
I do not follow the reasoning which lies behind the amendment. It is the duty of the registrar to call over the jury, but as to how the judge is to satisfy himself regarding the identity of jurors the Deputy has said nothing. In the absence of such explanation, and as I cannot see what the amendment means, except to give an amount of trouble to the judge by making him sit in court as a mere formality, I cannot accept it. The Deputy does not seem to understand it himself.
The Minister lives in 1871, and we do not expect him to follow what takes place in 1929.
What will not take place in 1929.
Amendment put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 52; Níl, 64.
Tá
- Aiken, Frank.
- Anthony, Richard.
- Blaney, Neal.
- Boland, Patrick.
- Bourke, Daniel.
- Brady, Seán.
- Briscoe, Robert.
- Broderick, Henry.
- Buckley, Daniel.
- Carney, Frank.
- Cassidy, Archie J.
- Coburn, James.
- Colbert, James.
- Colohan, Hugh.
- Cooney, Eamon.
- Corkery, Dan.
- Corish, Richard.
- Crowley, Fred. Hugh.
- Crowley, Tadhg.
- Davin, William.
- Doyle, Edward.
- Everett, James.
- Fahy, Frank.
- Flinn, Hugo.
- Fogarty, Andrew.
- French, Seán.
- Gorry, Patrick J.
- Goulding, John.
- Houlihan, Patrick.
- Jordan, Stephen.
- Kennedy, Michael Joseph.
- Kent, William R.
- Kerlin, Frank.
- Killilea, Mark.
- Kilroy, Michael.
- Lemass, Seán F.
- McEllistrim, Thomas.
- MacEntee, Seán.
- Moore, Séamus.
- Mullins, Thomas.
- O'Dowd, Patrick Joseph.
- O'Kelly, Seán T.
- O'Leary, William.
- O'Reilly, Matthew.
- O'Reilly, Thomas.
- Powell, Thomas P.
- Ruttledge, Patrick J.
- Ryan, James.
- Sexton, Martin.
- Tubridy, John.
- Walsh, Richard.
- Ward, Francis C.
Níl
- Aird, William P.
- Alton, Ernest Henry.
- Beckett, James Walter.
- Bennett, George Cecil.
- Blythe, Ernest.
- Bourke, Séamus A.
- Brodrick, Seán.
- Byrne, John Joseph.
- Collins-O'Driscoll, Mrs. Margt.
- Conlon, Martin.
- Connolly, Michael P.
- Cosgrave, William T.
- Craig, Sir James.
- Crowley, James.
- Daly, John.
- Davis, Michael.
- De Loughrey, Peter.
- Doherty, Eugene.
- Dolan, James N.
- Doyle, Peadar Seán.
- Duggan, Edmund John.
- Dwyer, James.
- Egan, Barry M.
- Esmonde, Osmond Thos. Grattan.
- Fitzgerald, Desmond.
- Fitzgerald-Kenney, James.
- O'Mahony, Dermot Gun.
- O'Reilly, John J.
- O'Sullivan, John Marcus.
- Rice, Vincent.
- Shaw, Patrick W.
- Sheehy, Timothy (West Cork).
- Good, John.
- Gorey, Denis J.
- Haslett, Alexander.
- Hassett, John J.
- Heffernan, Michael R.
- Hennessy, Thomas.
- Henry, Mark.
- Holohan, Richard.
- Jordan, Michael.
- Kelly, Patrick Michael.
- Law, Hugh Alexander.
- Leonard, Patrick.
- Lynch, Finian.
- Mathews, Arthur Patrick.
- McFadden, Michael Og.
- McGilligan, Patrick.
- Mongan, Joseph W.
- Murphy, James E.
- Murphy, Joseph Xavier.
- Myles, James Sproule.
- Nally, Martin Michael.
- Nolan, John Thomas.
- O'Connell, Richard.
- O'Connor, Bartholomew.
- O'Donovan, Timothy Joseph.
- O'Higgins, Thomas.
- Thrift, William Edward.
- Tierney, Michael.
- Vaughan, Daniel.
- White, John.
- White, Vincent Joseph.
- Wolfe, George.
Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Flinn and Briscoe; Níl: Deputies Duggan and P. Doyle.
Amendment declared lost.
I move amendment 17:—
To add at the end of paragraph (a) the words, "and it shall be lawful for the solicitors and counsel representing any accused person whose trial it is intended shall take place on the said day of such sitting to be present, and to be afforded an opportunity of verifying the identity of such juror.
Unless it is the intention of the Minister in this Bill to take away all protection from the unfortunate prisoner, I do not see how it can be said that it is not a reasonable and necessary amendment. Nobody except perhaps one in a Ministerial position would be louder in condemning the taking away of those rights from the prisoner than the Minister himself. The amendment gives the prisoner some protection against having people there who would not be entitled to be there. If the section goes through as it is without amendment, it would mean that an unscrupulous State prosecutor could successfully resort to methods that would be to the disadvantage of the prisoner.
I submit to the House that this is an absolutely ludicrous suggestion, because what lies behind this belief, if it is a belief, of Deputy Ruttledge is, that jurymen are constantly being personated. Fancy the office of Juryman so much desired after, so much sought after that persons are rushing in to personate jurymen.
On a point of correction. I did not think that the Minister was sleeping. I referred to unscrupulous State prosecutors, and not to personation.
There is nothing here about State prosecutors. State prosecutors have nothing to do with this. According to Deputy Ruttledge that is the only meaning that can be put upon his words. If he considered this amendment at all, the only thing that could have been behind the mind of Deputy Ruttledge, or the mind of whoever framed the amendment, was the idea that jurymen were being constantly personated; that there was grave danger of jurymen being personated; and that persons were most anxious, evidently, that they might be put in the position of jurymen in order to carry out the pleasant functions that jurymen have to carry out—being away from their business and all that; and assuming that persons were so anxious that the registrar would not be a sufficient check, and that the person himself who was being personated would not ever turn up. Of course, no such condition of affairs ever has existed or ever could exist. All that most persons want is to be excused from serving on juries, not to personate other persons and go serve on juries, and even if such an extraordinary state of affairs did ever come into existence of persons of a queer, eccentric strain being suddenly seized with the idea that they would like to go and serve on juries day after day, I do not see how even this provision would check it. I wonder, say, in the City of Dublin, how many jurymen the ordinary counsel or solicitor defending a prisoner would even know, and how they would know whether there was personation going on or not I cannot follow. It is perfectly obvious that that condition could never arise in which persons would start personating jurors. This is simply an amendment put in in order that something may be put in, something that will stop the passage of the Bill and something that may lead to one extra division which seems to be the great desire of the Fianna Fáil Party at the moment, because I notice that so much pruned down and so much abridged is not only the eloquence of long-winded Deputies of Fianna Fáil, but even——
It would be better, I think, if we kept to the Juries Bill. It is not half as bad as the two Parties.
Very well, I will wait for some other opportunity.
The Minister tried to confuse the House as to the intention that underlies this amendment, by saying that what was intended to be protected was the personation of jurors. I think that never entered the mind of anyone, except the mind of the Minister for Justice himself. The Minister has indicated here already—at least, as far as I could gather, what he stated amounted to this—that we were doing nothing very revolutionary under this Bill; that we were just merely getting back to the 'seventies, and apparently the system that was in operation in the 'seventies for dealing with prisoners was the ideal system. In the 'seventies we had jury-packing in the country. We had State prosecutors, or Crown prosecutors, or whatever they were called at that time, changed from one venue to another in order to try and secure the conviction of prisoners.
Some Deputies may remember the Fenian times when prisoners were taken from their own districts and tried in other parts of the country. For instance, they were taken to be tried in Sligo because there was a very definite viewpoint there amongst a big section, and there would not have been much difficulty on the part of the State or the Crown in securing conviction there. That is what I have in mind. If the Minister thought that the 'seventies system was an ideal one, and that the Peter the Packer system was an ideal one——
He was long after the 'seventies.
If that system should again obtain in the country is it any wonder we should provide against collaboration or collusion between the State officials and others to secure a conviction, especially since the Minister is endeavouring to put this Bill through so that everything will be done behind closed doors?
An Leas-Cheann Comhairle took the Chair.
If the Minister and the Executive Council are prepared to go that far and to have everything done in darkness, in an underhand way, is it any wonder we try to provide, as we do in this amendment, not against personation but against people being brought in who have no right to be brought in to serve on juries?
The Deputy has not said two words in favour of this amendment.
Amendment put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 51; Níl, 69.
Tá
- Aiken, Frank.
- Anthony, Richard.
- Blaney, Neal.
- Boland, Patrick.
- Bourke, Daniel.
- Brady, Seán.
- Briscoe, Robert.
- Broderick, Henry.
- Buckley, Daniel.
- Cassidy, Archie J.
- Fahy, Frank.
- Flinn, Hugo.
- Fogarty, Andrew.
- French, Seán.
- Gorry, Patrick J.
- Goulding, John.
- Houlihan, Patrick.
- Jordan, Stephen.
- Kennedy, Michael Joseph.
- Kent, William R.
- Kerlin, Frank.
- Killilea, Mark.
- Kilroy, Michael.
- Lemass, Seán F.
- McEllistrim, Thomas.
- MacEntee, Seán.
- Coburn, James.
- Colbert, James.
- Colohan, Hugh.
- Cooney, Eamon.
- Corkery, Dan.
- Corish, Richard.
- Crowley, Fred. Hugh.
- Crowley, Tadhg.
- Doyle, Edward.
- Everett, James.
- Moore, Séamus.
- Mullins, Thomas.
- O'Connell, Thomas J.
- O'Dowd, Patrick Joseph.
- O'Kelly, Seán T.
- O'Leary, William.
- O'Reilly, Matthew.
- O'Reilly, Thomas.
- Powell, Thomas P.
- Ruttledge, Patrick J.
- Ryan, James.
- Sexton, Martin.
- Tubridy, John.
- Walsh, Richard.
- Ward, Francis C.
Níl
- Aird, William P.
- Alton, Ernest Henry.
- Beckett, James Walter.
- Bennett, George Cecil.
- Blythe, Ernest.
- Bourke, Séamus A.
- Brennan, Michael.
- Brodrick, Seán.
- Byrne, John Joseph.
- Carey, Edmund.
- Collins-O'Driscoll, Mrs. Margt.
- Conlon, Martin.
- Connolly, Michael P.
- Cosgrave, William T.
- Craig, Sir James.
- Crowley, James.
- Daly, John.
- Davis, Michael.
- De Loughrey, Peter.
- Doherty, Eugene.
- Dolan, James N.
- Doyle, Peadar Seán.
- Duggan, Edmund John.
- Dwyer, James.
- Egan, Barry M.
- Esmonde, Osmond Thos. Grattan.
- Fitzgerald, Desmond.
- Fitzgerald-Kenney, James.
- Good, John.
- Gorey, Denis J.
- Haslett, Alexander.
- Hassett, John J.
- Heffernan, Michael R.
- Hennessy, Thomas.
- Henry, Mark.
- Holohan, Richard.
- Jordan, Michael.
- Kelly, Patrick Michael.
- Keogh, Myles.
- Law, Hugh Alexander.
- Leonard, Patrick.
- Lynch, Finian.
- Mathews, Arthur Patrick.
- McFadden, Michael Og.
- McGilligan, Patrick.
- Mongan, Joseph W.
- Murphy, James E.
- Murphy, Joseph Xavier.
- Myles, James Sproule.
- Nally, Martin Michael.
- Nolan, John Thomas.
- O'Connell, Richard.
- O'Connor, Bartholomew.
- O'Donovan, Timothy Joseph.
- O'Hanlon, John F.
- O'Higgins, Thomas.
- O'Mahony, Dermot Gun.
- O'Reilly, John J.
- O'Sullivan, Gearoid.
- O'Sullivan, John Marcus.
- Rice, Vincent.
- Shaw, Patrick W.
- Sheehy, Timothy (West Cork).
- Thrift, William Edward.
- Tierney, Michael.
- Vaughan, Daniel.
- White, John.
- White, Vincent Joseph.
- Wolfe, George.
Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Flinn and Briscoe; Níl: Deputies Duggan and P.S. Doyle.
Amendment declared lost.
I move amendment 19—
In paragraph (b) to delete in lines 28-29 the words "unless he has reason to believe" and substitute therefor the words "unless the jury on evidence of the registrar is of opinion".
The word "jury" in that amendment is obviously an error. I think, when speaking on this debate yesterday, the Minister went out of his way to centre his whole case on what was an obvious misprint. He made an attack on the lack of sanity, stupidity and senselessness of this Party, and he centred on what is obviously misprint.
There are half a dozen others too.
We will deal with this. I got the original from the Clerk of this House, and if the Minister thought it worth his while, and had the time, and did not act so senselessly and so stupidly as he did, he would have found that the word "judge" was in the original and not "jury." I have the original here. He could have got some of the junior clerks in his office to find out that.
I would suggest now, since the word "judge" and not "jury" has come in that the Deputy would explain what the amendment means, if it means anything. If the Deputy has now studied the amendment, if he could explain in the slightest what the amendment means, or what the object of it is, I would be greatly obliged. I venture to think the Deputy will not attempt an explanation, or tell the House what is in the back of his mind, for there is nothing in the back of his mind. I venture to think that his mind is a pure blank. He produces an amendment and says: "There is a misprint in the amendment," and then he sits down without explaining it, or what he wants by the amendment, being, as far as I can see, perfectly incapable of explaining its meaning.
If ever a man has put up a case for an amendment to be offered to that Bench the case has been put up by the Minister for Justice. The suggestion is that there is no sense in it. That is the place for such an amendment. The suggestion is that it is unintelligible. They have nothing to do with anything that is intelligible. We have actually had a Minister telling us that he has no experience of prosecutions, and yet this whole Bill deals with prosecutions. His case is based on the fact that he is ignorant of prosecutions and does not care a damn about how they are carried out. That is his method, because he is blank of intelligence and blank of everything else. That is why a blank amendment ought to be offered.
I would ask the Deputy in future if he does get excited to moderate his language.
I am not the slightest bit excited.
The Deputy ought to moderate his language.
A blank amendment!
Offered to a blank mind.
I do not know if I should answer the Minister. I think anybody could intelligibly read the amendment. If people cannot read, you cannot expect that you will be able to explain anything to them. There it is; the words are very simple, and there is nothing ambiguous about it.
Explain what you want.
That it is only the Judge on the evidence of the Registrar. Is it not quite simple?
Shall do what, on the evidence of the Registrar?
The amendment is:—
In paragraph (b) to delete in lines 28-29 the words "unless he has reason to believe" and substitute therefor the words "unless the Judge on evidence of the registrar is of opinion."
Of what opinion?
I am afraid I must give it up.
We can give the Minister argument, but we cannot give him understanding. That is not argument.
Question put: "That the words proposed to be deleted stand part"
The Committee divided: Tá, 67; Níl, 51.
Tá
- Aird, William P.
- Alton, Ernest Henry.
- Beckett, James Walter.
- Bennett, George Cecil.
- Blythe, Ernest.
- Bourke, Séamus A.
- Brennan, Michael.
- Brodrick, Seán.
- Byrne, John Joseph.
- Carey, Edmund.
- Collins-O'Driscoll, Mrs. Margt.
- Conlon, Martin.
- Connolly, Michael P.
- Cosgrave, William T.
- Craig, Sir James.
- Crowley, James.
- Daly, John.
- Davis, Michael.
- De Loughrey, Peter.
- Doherty, Eugene.
- Dolan, James N.
- Doyle, Peadar Seán.
- Duggan, Edmund John.
- Dwyer, James.
- Egan, Barry M.
- Esmonde, Osmond Thos. Grattan.
- Fitzgerald, Desmond.
- Fitzgerald-Kenney, James.
- Good, John.
- Gorey, Denis J.
- Haslett, Alexander.
- Hassett, John J.
- Heffernan, Michael R.
- Hennessy, Thomas.
- Henry, Mark.
- Holohan, Richard.
- Kelly, Patrick Michael.
- Keogh, Myles.
- Law, Hugh Alexander.
- Leonard, Patrick.
- Lynch, Finian.
- Mathews, Arthur Patrick.
- McFadden, Michael Og.
- McGilligan, Patrick.
- Mongan, Joseph W.
- Murphy, James E.
- Myles, James Sproule.
- Nally, Martin Michael.
- Nolan, John Thomas.
- O'Connell, Richard.
- O'Connor, Bartholomew.
- O'Donovan, Timothy Joseph.
- O'Hanlon, John F.
- O'Higgins, Thomas.
- O'Mahony, Dermot Gun.
- O'Reilly, John J.
- O'Sullivan, Gearoid.
- O'Sullivan, John Marcus.
- Rice, Vincent.
- Shaw, Patrick W.
- Sheehy, Timothy (West Cork).
- Thrift, William Edward.
- Tierney, Michael.
- Vaughan, Daniel.
- White, John.
- White, Vincent Joseph.
- Wolfe, George.
Níl
- Aiken, Frank.
- Anthony, Richard.
- Blaney, Neal.
- Boland, Patrick.
- Bourke, Daniel.
- Brady, Seán.
- Briscoe, Robert.
- Broderick, Henry.
- Buckley, Daniel.
- Carney, Frank.
- Cassidy, Archie J.
- Coburn, James.
- Colbert, James.
- Colohan, Hugh.
- Cooney, Eamon.
- Corkery, Dan.
- Corish, Richard.
- Crowley, Fred. Hugh.
- Crowley, Tadhg.
- Doyle, Edward.
- Everett, James.
- Fahy, Frank.
- Flinn, Hugo.
- Fogarty, Andrew.
- French, Seán.
- Gorry, Patrick J.
- Goulding, John.
- Houlihan, Patrick.
- Jordan, Stephen.
- Kennedy, Michael Joseph.
- Kent, William R.
- Kerlin, Frank.
- Killilea, Mark.
- Kilroy, Michael.
- Lemass, Seán F.
- McEllistrim, Thomas.
- MacEntee, Seán.
- Moore, Séamus.
- Mullins, Thomas.
- O'Dowd, Patrick Joseph.
- O'Kelly, Seán T.
- O'Leary, William.
- O'Reilly, Matthew.
- O'Reilly, Thomas.
- Powell, Thomas P.
- Ruttledge, Patrick J.
- Ryan, James.
- Sexton, Martin.
- Tubridy, John.
- Walsh, Richard.
- Ward, Francis C.
Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Duggan and Doyle; Níl: Deputies Briscoe and Flinn.
Question declared carried.
I move amendment 20:—
To add at the end of paragraph (b) the words "save that such juror shall not be called to be sworn on any trial until the list of jurors who have answered to their names in open court is exhausted."
The object of the amendment is to provide that jurors shall be sworn in open court. I am endeavouring by this amendment to get away from the secrecy which is sought to be established by this Bill as proposed. The Bill proposes to keep the names of jurors secret, but this amendment provides that to some extent jurors shall be sworn in public.
The object of the amendment is that a juryman who considers, for the purpose of securing his own personal safety, that it would be better to give his name privately to the registrar should not be allowed to serve upon a jury. That is a view I cannot take. This is an opportunity which the law gives a man of taking reasonable precaution for his own safety; and to say that for that reason he is less qualified to act on a jury than a man who does not take the same precaution, appears to me to be an argument that does not follow. I cannot see that there is any justification for saying that a person becomes any less suitable to serve on a jury because he prefers simply to mention his name to the registrar.
Amendment put.
The Committee divided. Tá: 51; Níl: 70.
Tá
- Aiken, Frank.
- Anthony, Richard.
- Blaney, Neal.
- Boland, Patrick.
- Bourke, Daniel.
- Brady, Seán.
- Briscoe, Robert.
- Broderick, Henry.
- Buckley, Daniel.
- Carney, Frank.
- Cassidy, Archie J.
- Colbert, James.
- Colohan, Hugh.
- Cooney, Eamon.
- Corkery, Dan.
- Corish, Richard.
- Crowley, Fred. Hugh.
- Crowley, Tadhg.
- Davin, William.
- Doyle, Edward.
- Everett, James.
- Fahy, Frank.
- Flinn, Hugo.
- Fogarty, Andrew.
- French, Seán.
- Gorry, Patrick J.
- Goulding, John.
- Houlihan, Patrick.
- Jordan, Stephen.
- Kennedy, Michael Joseph.
- Kent, William R.
- Kerlin, Frank.
- Killilea, Mark.
- Kilroy, Michael.
- Lemass, Seán F.
- McEllistrim, Thomas.
- MacEntee, Seán.
- Moore, Séamus.
- Mullins, Thomas.
- O'Dowd, Patrick Joseph.
- O'Kelly, Seán T.
- O'Leary, William.
- O'Reilly, Matthew.
- O'Reilly, Thomas.
- Powell, Thomas P.
- Ruttledge, Patrick J.
- Ryan, James.
- Sexton, Martin.
- Tubridy, John.
- Walsh, Richard.
- Ward, Francis C.
Níl
- Aird, William P.
- Alton, Ernest Henry.
- Beckett, James Walter.
- Bennett, George Cecil.
- Blythe, Ernest.
- Bourke, Séamus A.
- Brennan, Michael.
- Brodrick, Seán.
- Byrne, John Joseph.
- Carey, Edmund.
- Cole, John James.
- Collins-O'Driscoll, Mrs. Margt.
- Dwyer, James.
- Egan, Barry M.
- Esmonde, Osmond Thos. Grattan.
- Fitzgerald, Desmond.
- Fitzgerald-Kenney, James.
- Good, John.
- Gorey, Denis J.
- Haslett, Alexander.
- Hassett, John J.
- Heffernan, Michael R.
- Hennessy, Michael Joseph.
- Hennessy, Thomas.
- Henry, Mark.
- Holohan, Richard.
- Jordan, Michael.
- Kelly, Patrick Michael.
- Keogh, Myles.
- Law, Hugh Alexander.
- Leonard, Patrick.
- Lynch, Finian.
- Mathews, Arthur Patrick.
- McFadden, Michael Og.
- McGilligan, Patrick.
- Conlon, Martin.
- Connolly, Michael P.
- Cosgrave, William T.
- Craig, Sir James.
- Crowley, James.
- Daly, John.
- Davis, Michael.
- De Loughrey, Peter.
- Doherty, Eugene.
- Dolan, James N.
- Doyle, Peadar Seán.
- Duggan, Edmund John.
- Mongan, Joseph W.
- Murphy, James E.
- Myles, James Sproule.
- Nally, Martin Michael.
- Nolan, John Thomas.
- O'Connell, Richard.
- O'Connor, Bartholomew.
- O'Donovan, Timothy Joseph.
- O'Hanlon, John F.
- O'Higgins, Thos.
- O'Mahony, Dermot Gun.
- O'Reilly, John J.
- O'Sullivan, Gearoid.
- O'Sullivan, John Marcus.
- Rice, Vincent.
- Shaw, Patrick W.
- Sheehy, Timothy (West Cork).
- Thrift, William Edward.
- Tierney, Michael.
- Vaughan, Daniel.
- White, John.
- White, Vincent Joseph.
- Wolfe, George.
Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Briscoe and Flinn; Níl: Deputies Duggan and Doyle.
Amendment declared lost.
Before I move amendment 22: "To delete paragraph (c)," I will, if you will permit me, move the next amendment:
In paragraph (c) to delete all words after the word "sittings," line 47, to the end of the paragraph and substitute therefor the following words "and the solicitors and counsel for accused persons intended to be tried at such sittings, members of the Oireachtas and representatives of the Press."
If amendment 22 is agreed to, I am prepared to withdraw amendment 23. Amendment 22 rules out amendment 23.
Amendment 23 is consequential. I have no objection.
I do not know whether the Minister has the view which the judges have, that solicitors are officers of the court. The section refers to officers of the court and allows them to be present. Does the Minister intend by that, what has been held from time to time, and what has been so stated by judges so often that I am sure everyone knows it, that solicitors are officers of the court? That has always been accepted. I want to be clear as to the meaning, seeing that in some other instances the Minister is not prepared to accept the view that the accused's solicitor or counsel should be present. Does the Minister hold that a solicitor is not an officer of the court under this section, and is to be excluded? If the Minister is to give the ordinary meaning attaching to the words, and accepted by judges, that would obviate a lot of amendments we have put down dealing with the accused's solicitor and counsel. A subsequent amendment provides that the judge shall be present. I have stated reasons, in dealing with some previous amendments, why I think that would be desirable and necessary. I will deal with that matter subsequently.
If the Minister explains whether he accepts what the judiciary has accepted, that solicitors are officers of the court, it will remove some of the difficulty I have with regard to this amendment. It is only reasonable that counsel and members of the Oireachtas—some of whom, I suppose, are supposed to be engaged in a conspiracy to overpower the State—should be present. This is only a matter of bitter personal prejudice and is not a thing that, I think, any member of the House seriously believes. It is only a question of propaganda without any faith or belief behind it. I think it is only reasonable that members of the Oireachtas as well as members of the Press should be allowed to be present when these proceedings are being carried on. I would like the Minister to explain whether he gives a different interpretation to the question whether solicitors are officers of the court or not.
As far as the question as to whether solicitors are officers of the court or not is concerned, I would certainly be of opinion that these words "officers of the court" in this sub-section are not meant to include solicitors. Solicitors are officers of certain courts. They are officers, for instance of the Court of Chancery, and officers of the King's Bench, possibly, but I do not think when a court is sitting as a criminal court, a court of Oyer and Terminer as it was called, that solicitors were ever held to be officers.
Have they not been held to be officers of the Circuit Courts since they were established?
If the Deputy has any difficulty, on the Report Stage I will promise him to substitute another word for "officer" which will make the matter perfectly clear, so that the Deputy's doubts will be resolved. Consider what this procedure is to be. The object of this provision is that persons who are jurymen, who do not wish their names to be called out in court, because if their names are called out in court they will be subject to certain risks, walk into the registrar of the court and say: "My name is so-and-so, my number is so-and-so, and here is my jury card," and the registrar checks them off. That is meant to be a private proceeding; nobody will be there except the other jurymen, and since it is meant to be a private proceeding, since it has nothing to do with the actual hearing of the case against the accused and is simply a formality gone through to see what members of the jury panel are present, I do not see that there is any reason why persons other than the registrar should be present. As the section stands, the judge may be present if he wishes. We will come to the question as to whether he must be present or not when the Deputy moves his next amendment. But the officials of the court—I will use that term— are, in my judgement, sufficient persons to be present while that formality is gone through. I ask the House to reject this amendment also.
I wonder what authority the Minister has for stating that solicitors are officers only of certain courts, or if he wishes to exclude them from such courts as will suit the purpose for which this Bill was designed. Perhaps later on he will give us an exhaustive list of the courts of which he would consider solicitors to be officers. I think that the Minister's explanation shows a lack of confidence in the legal profession. He has expressed certain doubts, not in this particular connection, but his speeches would lead one to believe that he has doubts as to the advisability of admitting certain members of the Oireachtas during what he describes as these private proceedings. I do not believe that if it were put to him outside considerations of elections or Party politics, he would stand for the belief that members of the Oireachtas should not be admitted. In any case, I believe that solicitors and counsel could be trusted not to reveal names if that is his desire, though I do not see why they should not be revealed. I think he should have sufficient confidence in them, because it is vitally important to the accused that his solicitor and counsel be present during the whole of the proceedings.
As regards the Press, if members of the Press were there they need not publish the names, and I do not know that they should be excluded. I have often hard things to say of the Press—many of us have—particularly of the metropolitan Press, but their presence would have a certain restraining influence, and would give a certain amount of confidence regarding such matters as the packing of juries that things were all right. From his experience, the Minister knows that at least in such matters the Press could be relied on. I think that the Minister really has more confidence in the members of the Press, in solicitors and counsel than he would lead us to believe. He should have the same confidence as regards members of the Oireachtas, and I think that the amendment should be accepted.
There is a formal calling over of the jurors. I wonder how many times have defending solicitor and counsel been present when the mere formality of calling over the names of jurors has been going on. This section does not deal with the calling of jurors for the purpose of empanelling a jury; it is simply to see what members of the long panel, as it used to be called, answer their names.
And at the same time to see that nobody else answers for them.
That is simply, as I have already pointed out, a ludicrous suggestion—a suggestion that people are going to personate jurors.
But assume for a moment that this suspicion in relation to juries and the packing of juries is correct, assume that people are going to murder jurymen, assume that they have all the mentality which would lead up to the carrying out of an act of that kind, is none of them so criminally-minded as to personate some absent juryman for the purpose of obtaining the knowledge which otherwise they would not get? The Minister is piling up inducements to people to penetrate this veil of secrecy, and then he says the suggestion that anyone will use this method for the purpose of penetrating them is a ludicrous one.
Question—"That the words proposed to be deleted stand part of the Bill"—put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 68; Níl, 49.
Tá
- Aird, William P.
- Alton, Ernest Henry.
- Beckett, James Walter.
- Bennett, George Cecil.
- Blythe, Ernest.
- Bourke, Séamus A.
- Brennan, Michael.
- Brodrick, Seán.
- Byrne, John Joseph.
- Carey, Edmund.
- Cole, John James.
- Collins-O'Driscoll, Mrs. Margt.
- Conlan, Martin.
- Connolly, Michael P.
- Cosgrave, William T.
- Craig, Sir James.
- Crowley, James.
- Daly, John.
- Davis, Michael.
- De Loughrey, Peter.
- Doherty, Eugene.
- Dolan, James N.
- Doyle, Peadar Seán.
- Duggan, Edmund John.
- Dwyer, James.
- Nally, Martin Michael.
- O'Connell, Richard.
- O'Connor, Bartholomew.
- O'Donovan, Timothy Joseph.
- O'Hanlon, John F.
- O'Higgins, Thomas.
- O'Mahony, Dermot Gun.
- O'Reilly, John J.
- O'Sullivan, Gearoid.
- Egan, Barry M.
- Esmonde, Osmond Thos. Grattan.
- Fitzgerald, Desmond.
- Fitzgerald-Kenney, James.
- Good, John.
- Gorey, Denis J.
- Haslett, Alexander.
- Hassett, John J.
- Hennessy, Michael Joseph.
- Hennessy, Thomas.
- Henry, Mark.
- Holohan, Richard.
- Jordan, Michael.
- Kelly, Patrick Michael.
- Keogh, Myles.
- Law, Hugh Alexander.
- Leonard, Patrick.
- Lynch, Finian.
- Mathews, Arthur Patrick.
- McDonogh, Martin.
- McFadden, Michael Og.
- McGilligan, Patrick.
- Mongan, Joseph W.
- Murphy, James E.
- Myles, James Sproule.
- O'Sullivan, John Marcus.
- Rice, Vincent.
- Sheehy, Timothy (West Cork).
- Thrift, William Edward.
- Tierney, Michael.
- Vaughan, Daniel.
- White, John.
- White, Vincent Joseph.
- Wolfe, George.
Níl
- Aiken, Frank.
- Anthony, Richard.
- Blaney, Neal.
- Boland, Patrick.
- Bourke, Daniel.
- Brady, Seán.
- Briscoe, Robert.
- Broderick, Henry.
- Buckley, Daniel.
- Carney, Frank.
- Cassidy, Archie J.
- Colbert, James.
- Colohan. Hugh.
- Cooney, Eamon.
- Corkery, Dan.
- Crowley, Fred. Hugh.
- Crowley, Tadhg.
- Davin, William.
- Doyle, Edward.
- Everett, James.
- Fahy, Frank.
- Flinn, Hugo.
- Fogarty, Andrew.
- French, Seán.
- Gorry, Patrick J.
- Goulding, John.
- Houlihan, Patrick.
- Jordan, Stephen.
- Kennedy, Michael Joseph.
- Kent, William R.
- Kerlin, Frank.
- Killilea, Mark.
- Kilroy, Michael.
- Lemass, Seán F.
- McEllistrim, Thomas.
- MacEntee, Seán.
- Moore, Séamus.
- Mullins, Thomas.
- O'Dowd, Patrick Joseph.
- O'Kelly, Seán T.
- O'Leary, William.
- O'Reilly, Matthew.
- Powell, Thomas P.
- Ruttledge, Patrick J.
- Ryan, James.
- Sexton, Martin.
- Tubridy, John.
- Walsh, Richard.
- Ward, Francis C.
Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Duggan and P.S. Doyle; Níl: Deputies Briscoe and Flinn.
Question declared carried.
That disposes of amendments 22 and 23, and amendment 24 falls.
I move amendment 25:
To add at the end of paragraph (d) the following words: "Provided that the prisoner, or his solicitor or counsel shall be entitled to call for and obtain the name, address, and occupation of any juror about to be sworn for the purpose of enabling him to exercise his right of challenge."
It does seem reasonable that the prisoner should be entitled to know the names of the jury even then, or his solicitor should be entitled to know them. He may see on that jury, supposed to be empanelled for the purpose of trying him, men whom he may have some reason to believe, without being able to identify them, are not persons from whom he could expect to get justice. They might have been in some way prejudiced, and he might have reason to believe that they belonged to some organisation that might be prejudiced towards his trial. As I have pointed out in an amendment already, the State has unlimited rights of stand by while the Executive has cut down the right from 20 challenges to 5. It is because it has been reduced in that way that it seems all the more essential. If there is to be any idea of justice, if this thing is not to be a complete elimination of justice, as far as the prisoner is concerned, it seems only reasonable that he should be provided with some knowledge of the jurors who are trying him. It is the first time that it has been proposed in any place that a man should be tried by people whose names he cannot get and whom he is not entitled to know. I gave an example of the person burning the house, and it applies to every other case in somewhat the same way. A man may be charged with a particular offence. There might be a body of people in a certain line of business who would be very prejudiced in considering his case. If he is to be tried by a number of people who have views such as that, surely their verdict will be coloured by the views that they hold, and they may not be able to see or deal with the matter impartially or fairly as they would deal with it if they had not been interested in a particular line of business. That is one of the ideas I have in this, that he should be provided with the names of the jurors so that he may, while the jury is being empanelled, be able to secure for himself, however doubtful it is, the justice that will be given to him under this Bill.
I think the Minister has been fairly straight about it when he takes up the view that the State cannot do wrong and that the State does not want to secure convictions. I have seen it. Everyone else has seen it. He has seen it himself where prosecutors have gone out of their way to challenge certain people. I have seen it in every circuit court and sessions I have been at. I have seen State solicitors and Crown prosecutors being prompted by the R.I.C. of one day or the Guards of the present day with regard to certain people. The Guards are there to prompt the State solicitor that certain people come from a certain area. Often the Crown prosecutor or State solicitor said to me: "I will challenge that man because he does not look very respectable." One man wears a collar and sometimes he is assumed to take up a certain point of view because he does, as against a man in poverty-stricken circumstances. I have seen it and the Minister for Justice has seen it. That does happen. I think it was clearly and decently put one time by a resident magistrate in court when he said: "I will agree that when the police set out to investigate a case they are then perfectly fair, but having brought the case, if they then discover that they have made an error, or are in the wrong, they will not admit it." He is a resident magistrate now in the Six Counties. He was then in the West of Ireland, but his belief was that police even perjured themselves to secure a conviction to justify themselves once the case was brought. It is perfectly true they may start out all right in the beginning; they may be satisfied on some evidence that this person was guilty, and if, in the course of their investigations, they may feel it endangers their own position they are still so influenced by that prejudice that they will go ahead with the prosecution and try to secure it.
But to say that the State does not want to get a conviction, if anybody who wanted to question that had been down at Green Street five or six months ago he would have seen some of the ablest criminal lawyers that this country has known for some time—at least one of them—cross-examining and endeavouring to secure convictions so far as he could. He would have seen Guards brought up from the country to secure that persons only of certain political or business views would be on the jury for the trial of certain persons. That has been done. It has not been left aside. It is unfair, surely, to have the last chance the prisoner has got taken away. He is not going to know those who are to try him. If you want to get even a semblance of justice, even a semblance of being a little better than a star-chambered drumhead courtmartial, at least let the prisoner know who are the people that are trying him. He goes into the court before the judge; he knows the judge's name. The witnesses, I suppose, he will know, unless the Minister for Justice brings forward an amendment on the Report Stage, that witnesses shall come into court wearing masks. I do not know whether he will make that proposition, but I would not be surprised if we have some such proposal from the Minister, to keep everything in the dark and give the prisoner no chance. If there is any reason at all in the Minister for Justice, and this is an eminently reasonable proposal, he will allow the person who is directly concerned to have the names of the jurors, to see that there is no one there who may be prejudiced against him, especially seeing that the State has an unlimited right of stand-by and that the prisoner's rights have been cut down to what under English law they were never cut down, even in the worst days of coercion in this country. Having gone that far, perhaps there is an end. Even the Executive may see that they have gone shamelessly too far. I ask the House to support this amendment and to give the prisoner some chance of getting fair play and justice.
Deputy Ruttledge appeared to me to wander a very considerable distance away from the amendment which he was proposing. He said that I had stated that the State was never anxious to get a conviction. I never made any such statement. My statement was that the State was anxious that persons who were proven guilty should be found guilty by the jury. The State are anxious to get convictions where the guilt of the man is clear. The State are not anxious and do not want to get convictions unless the guilt of the person is established. To travesty that into the statement Deputy Ruttledge made that I had declared that the State never wanted to get convictions is absolutely absurd. Of course, the State wants to get convictions. It is the duty of the State to see that the prisoners proven guilty are found guilty as far as lies in the power of the State to achieve that end, to see that guilty persons are not to escape the punishment of their actions.
When are they guilty?
When they are found guilty.
By a jury?
Yes, and when there is adequate evidence on which the jury should find them guilty. It is the duty of the State to see that evidence for the prosecution is put with full strength but perfectly fairly before the jury. When a case is clear it is always and should be the object of the State to see that a conviction is obtained. The Deputy also wandered when he talked about the views of a resident magistrate with regard to the Royal Irish Constabulary. We have no resident magistrates in this country now and we have no Royal Irish Constabulary. We have got a police force which Deputies on the opposite benches, I know, are constantly attacking, but a police force which I still maintain and always will maintain is as fair a police force as could be found in the world.
The Minister is copying the Deputy's bad example now.
I am afraid if one Deputy starts off wildly he must be answered.
I did not go wildly.
The Deputy was talking about the R.I.C. and their forces, and surely I must answer him. If he wanders it becomes necessary for me to wander too. The Deputy also, as if it were a terrible crime, said the State Solicitor was informed by the Gárda as to what person should or should not be challenged. Of course the State Solicitor is so informed. Every person that the Gárda knows to be a character who would not make a suitable juryman, who would not be disposed to do justice between the State and the accused, is challenged. If a person who is called as a juror is a relation of the prisoner, or anything of that kind, it is the obvious duty of the State Solicitor to see that that man does not serve on that jury.
Will the Minister give the same rights to the prisoner?
Certainly. He has the same rights. A person will be there and will be called by his number. If the prisoner likes, he can challenge up to the number of challenges to which he is entitled. There is nothing to prevent that. Then he can challenge as many more as he can show cause for. The Deputy knows that perfectly. The prisoner is entitled to challenge anybody opposed to him, any personal enemy, Certainly one does not require a list of the names to know one's personal enemies. What is the object of this Bill? I have explained it again and again. Its object is the protection of the jurymen. If the Deputy's amendment be accepted, this whole protection goes down, because while the names of the jurymen on the panel, who may or may not be called, will be kept a secret, yet the names of the jurymen who are sworn to try a particular case will in every instance be known. The whole object of this Bill—the protection of jurymen, by preventing evilly-disposed persons knowing the names of those who are to serve on juries—would be defeated if this amendment were carried. That is to say, what Deputy Ruttledge wants is, where it is comparatively, if not entirely, harmless, that a man's name would be known it is to be known, but where it is of the utmost importance that his name should not be known, his name is to be published. That is the Deputy's amendment, and I ask the House to reject it.
There were some extraordinary statements made by the Minister for Justice. He said the prisoner has the same rights of challenge as the State has.
He has got five challenges and as many more as he can show cause for.
He does not know the names of the jurymen. He may know that certain people would be inimical to him. He might know the jurymen only by name. He might not know who they were, and it would be impossible for him to challenge them if he did not know who they were. They might be personal enemies of his. The Minister states that the prosecuting counsel is informed by the Gárda of the fitness or unfitness of certain jurymen. The prisoner has not the same facilities at all. Even his counsel does not know who they are. I fail to see where the equality is there. The whole question, of course, does not arise now. But many jurymen will be known, and I do not see how it is so difficult afterwards to find out who the rest are. The Minister will not achieve his purpose by this Bill. If the Minister wants to improve the jury system, he should do so by bringing in a Bill for that purpose and get the same co-operation that he has got in the Censorship of Publications Bill. But if he wants a Bill for the protection of jurymen let him bring in a Bill for that specific purpose—I do not say we will agree to it. Do not let him mix up two different things to meet circumstances of a particular situation and thus upset the jury system for all time.
It is suggested that one will recognise without any hesitation one's antagonist or people who may be prejudiced against one or people who in certain circumstances would make one feel that they would be inimical. I have had the pleasure of standing at the terrace gate of this House a half-dozen times or more to-day, and I have counted, roughly speaking, 65 representatives of the Government going through that Lobby. The most that I have been able personally to put names on in any case were 29. I mean that of the actual Cumann na nGaedheal Deputies in the House at the present moment—the number who passed through the lobby—I personally would be able to recognise by name at the very most 29. There is a certain proportion of the remainder to whom I could swear. But there are a considerable number of Deputies passing through that lobby whom I could not swear to——
Or swear at.
Yes, either to or at. That is a fair example of the amount of knowledge one has. There are certain people passing through that Lobby to-day of whom I have no knowledge except that they have passed the Table. I certainly would not, if they were put up for identification, swear they were members of this Dáil.
Do you know the Ministers?
The Ministers know me and that is quite good enough for them.
Perhaps the Deputy will deal now with the amendment.
I am talking about identifying people.
The Deputy has not dealt with the amendment up to this.
The suggestion is that the Minister is up against criminals. But all those criminals are fools. They have not got any ordinary intelligence to misuse his machinery in the same way as he is misusing it. But it does seem obvious, taking his own argument to be sound, that there are people who want to find out the names of the jurymen for the purpose of killing them. There is a direct inducement to them to do that. I think what is quite likely to happen is that as soon as this thing is put into operation, if ever it is put into operation, somebody who has no desire whatever to kill jurymen, but who does desire to show that the machinery set up by the Minister is futile, will actually attempt to ascertain the names of some set of jurors. Now assume for a moment that somebody does that. Somebody, anybody or anyone who sees that the way to break down this criminally wrong way of playing about with juries is to show it is futile—what on earth is to prevent such persons from placarding a blank wall with the names of such jurors after they have found them? And does it matter twopence halfpenny whether they be the right names or not? You can see what you are laying yourselves open to. If this criminal body is there and if they are prepared to do the things that the Minister says they are doing, you are making it easy for them or for anybody to endanger not merely a particular collection of jurymen but any jurymen they like by pretending they have found this thing out. Let us assume for a moment that this criminal conspiracy is really as active and determined as is suggested.
Perhaps the Deputy will come to the amendment and deal with it.
The Minister says he wants suitable jurymen. I am using his own words. Suitable jurymen are men who will have the same idea as the Minister of what constitutes a guilty man. The Minister has spoken of guilty persons. He says it is the duty of the State to see that guilty persons are convicted, and he assumes the possession of knowledge by the prosecutor in relation to those guilty persons before they have been ascertained to be guilty by the only means by which the law knows them to be guilty—after process of trial before a jury. The prosecutor, according to the Minister for Justice, is to make up his mind that certain people are guilty, and apparently in relation to those people any ruthless sort of method of looking for a conviction at any price is preferable as distinct from carrying out his duty of seeing that the evidence is properly put forward. He said he had no experience of the prosecution.
If the Deputy does not deal with the amendment I must ask him to resume his seat.
It is admitted that the police declare who is and who is not a person to be challenged. Is it suggested they are impeccable? Are there no Sergeant Sheridans and no Sergeant Sullivans in existence to-day? Is there none of that system which was an organised system before, whose existence was well-known and whose continued existence in this country is producing all or a very large proportion of the unrest and the disrespect for the law which now exists? I would not be satisfied to be tried for my life before a jury which is packed by the Serjeant Sullivans and the Sergeant Sheridans who may be found for this purpose. If the prosecution is fair, if the machine is fair, and if there is an open jury, it is the business of people to send men to that jury for trial. I absolutely and unhesitatingly hold that any man to-day who is prima facie guilty of murder, if he has any excuse whatever or any justification which he thinks he ought to plead in his own favour, should be allowed to give that excuse and to plead that justification before a jury of his fellow-countrymen. It should be under circumstances in which there would be some sense of fairness and some sense of security, in which the body of the people when the verdict would be given would feel confident that the verdict was given under such circumstances as would enable them as a people to stand over it, if it meant the taking away of life for their own purposes and for their own safety.
This is a Second Reading speech. It has nothing to do with the amendment. I have warned the Deputy three times and yet he has not mentioned one word about the amendment. He is trying to deliver a Second Reading speech, and he will not be allowed to do that.
Under the very special circumstances which have just been communicated to me, I think I will leave the matter.
This Bill, particularly this clause, and the speeches that have been made in support of the clause by the Minister, go to show that the whole procedure laid down is based on the assumption that a person charged must be guilty or should be found guilty of the offence for which he is charged. This clause in particular is one to which I take exception, and unless it is removed from the Bill I certainly will not vote in favour of any other clause. We have not heard from the Minister whether the scheme now proposed for the protection of jurymen means, in the general opinion of jurymen, more security for them than did the conditions under which they were asked to serve in the past. I am prepared to admit, as a result of certain incidents which have taken place—as a result of the shooting, or the attempt to shoot, certain jurymen—that jurymen have in some cases, perhaps, become frightened. I am positively certain they will have far greater fear than ever they had before through having numbers placed on the tails of their coats in future with every possibility of being eventually exposed in the manner mentioned by Deputy Flinn. The people responsible for taking the lives of jurymen for having done their duty will, in spite of the so-called protective clause here, in future be able to find out who serve on juries just as they did in the past. The people engaged in the conspiracy are sufficiently active and intelligent to be able to trace the people who will serve on juries in the future—jurymen who will have numbers on the tails of their coats—in the very same way as they identified them by their names in the past.
The Minister, in justification for this clause, should give the House much more information than he has given concerning the extent to which fear exists as a result of certain incidents. He should give the House some information as to the extent to which jurors are satisfied with the protective clauses in the Bill. This clause is a farce. It is farcical from the point of view of the person who may be charged and who may be innocent. People have been charged with crimes of various descriptions: they were brought before juries and imprisoned. The whole system is a rotten system. The rottenness of this particular clause and the speeches made in its favour in the House lead me to the conclusion that the Minister and the people backing the Bill are putting it forward on the assumption that every person charged with any crime should be or must be found guilty.
Deputy Davin's position seems to be that the clause is not strong enough. He admits there is an organisation of criminals for the purpose of murdering jurymen, but he says that this Bill will not protect jurymen. That is a perfectly understandable position. Our point of view is that this Bill is the second best.
The Minister is not entitled to misrepresent what I said. I would like to know from him what evidence he has from the general body of jurymen regarding the question whether this is a greater protection for their lives acting as jurymen than the protection, whatever form it took, that was given them in the past.
Mr. Hogan
This is going to be a greater protection, and that is the very point I make. Deputies admit that there is an organisation of criminals for the purpose of murdering jurymen. Deputy Davin's position is quite understandable. In his opinion, this section is not strong enough.
It is farcical.
Mr. Hogan
It is farcical. If that is the position which Labour admits and which Fianna Fáil admits and denies, again admits and again denies——
What has this to do with the amendment?
Mr. Hogan
Deputy Davin admits it; he admits there is an organisation of criminals for the purpose of intimidating jurymen and prepared to use murder as a method. He admits that, and goes on from that to say that the particular clause to which this is an amendment is a farce and is not sufficient to protect jurymen. He might be right. I suggest that the logical course is to prepare an amendment for the Report Stage making the clause much stronger.
The difficulty is how to have it drafted along the same lines.
Does the Minister suggest strengthening the clause in the interest of the persons who may be charged?
Amendment put. The Committee divided: Tá, 53; Níl, 71.
Tá
|
Aiken, Frank.Anthony, Richard.Blaney, Neal.Boland, Patrick.Bourke, Daniel.Brady, Seán.Briscoe, Robert.Broderick, Henry.Buckley, Daniel.Carney, Frank.Cassidy, Archie J.Colbert, James.Colohan, Hugh.Cooney, Eamon.Corkery, Dan.Corish, Richard.Crowley, Fred. Hugh.Crowley, Tadhg.Davin, William.Doyle, Edward.Everett, James.Fahy, Frank.Flinn, Hugo.Fogarty, Andrew.French, Seán.Gorry, Patrick J.Goulding, John. |
Hayes, Seán.Houlihan, Patrick.Jordan, Stephen.Kennedy, Michael Joseph.Kent, William R.Kerlin, Frank.Killilea, Mark.Kilroy, Michael.Lemass, Seán F.McEllistrim, Thomas.MacEntee, Seán.Moore, Séamus.Mullins, Thomas.O'Connell, Thomas J.O'Dowd, Patrick Joseph.O'Kelly, Seán T.O'Leary, William.O'Reilly, Matthew.O'Reilly, Thomas.Powell, Thomas P.Ruttledge, Patrick J.Ryan, James.Sexton, Martin.Tubridy, John.Walsh, Richard.Ward, Francis C. |
Níl
|
Aird, William P.Alton, Ernest Henry.Beckett, James Walter.Bennett, George Cecil.Blythe, Ernest.Bourke, Séamus A.Brennan, Michael.Brodrick, Seán.Byrne, John Joseph.Carey, Edmund.Cole, John James.Collins-O'Driscoll, Mrs. Margt.Conlon, Martin.Connolly, Michael P.Cosgrave, William T.Crowley, James.Daly, John.Davis, Michael.De Loughrey, Peter.Doherty, Eugene.Dolan, James N.Doyle, Peadar Seán.Duggan, Edmund John.Dwyer, James.Egan, Barry M.Esmonde, Osmond Thos. Grattan.Fitzgerald, Desmond.Fitzgerald-Kenny, James.Good, John.Gorey, Denis J.Haslett, Alexander.Hassett, John J.Heffernan, Michael R.Hennessy, Michael Joseph.Hennessy, Thomas.Henry, Mark. |
Hogan, Patrick (Galway).Holohan, Richard.Jordan, Michael.Kelly, Patrick Míchael.Keogh, Myles.Law, Hugh Alexander.Leonard, Patrick.Lynch, Finian.Mathews, Arthur Patrick.McDonogh, Martin.McFadden, Michael Og.McGilligan, Patrick.Mongan, Joseph W.Murphy, James E.Myles, James Sproule.Nally, Martin Michael.Nolan, John Thomas.O'Connell, Richard.O'Connor, Bartholomew.O'Donovan, Timothy Joseph.O'Hanlon, John F.O'Higgins, Thos.O'Mahony, Dermot Gun.O'Reilly, John J.O'Sullivan, Gearoid.O'Sullivan, John Marcus.Rice, Vincent.Shaw, Patrick W.Sheehy, Timothy (West Cork).Thrift, William Edward.Tierney, Michael.Vaughan, Daniel.White, John.White, Vincent Joseph.Wolfe, George. |
Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Flinn and Briscoe; Níl: Deputies Duggan and P.S. Doyle.
Amendment declared lost.
Is it in order for persons to read newspapers in your gallery, sir?
No, it is not.
Amendments 26 and 27 are outside the scope of this section. One deals with the right to challenge and the other with change of venue.
Question—"That Section 4 stand part of the Bill"—put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 71; Níl, 53.
Tá
- Aird, William P.
- Alton, Ernest Henry.
- Beckett, James Walter.
- Bennett, George Cecil.
- Blythe, Ernest.
- Bourke, Séamus A.
- Brennan, Michael.
- Brodrick, Seán.
- Byrne, John Joseph.
- Carey, Edmund.
- Cole, John James.
- Collins-O'Driscoll, Mrs. Margt.
- Conlon, Martin.
- Connolly, Michael P.
- Cosgrave, William T.
- Crowley, James.
- Daly, John.
- Davis, Michael.
- De Loughrey, Peter.
- Doherty, Eugene.
- Dolan, James N.
- Leonard, Patrick.
- Lynch, Finian.
- Mathews, Arthur Patrick.
- McDonogh, Martin.
- McFadden, Michael Og.
- McGilligan, Patrick.
- Mongan, Joseph W.
- Murphy, James E.
- Myles, James Sproule.
- Nally, Martin Michael.
- Nolan, John Thomas.
- O'Connell, Richard.
- O'Connor, Bartholomew.
- O'Donovan, Timothy Joseph.
- O'Hanlon, John F.
- Doyle, Peadar Seán.
- Duggan, Edmund John.
- Dwyer, James.
- Egan, Barry M.
- Esmonde, Osmond Thos. Grattan.
- Fitzgerald, Desmond.
- Fitzgerald-Kenney, James.
- Good, John.
- Gorey, Denis J.
- Haslett, Alexander.
- Hassett, John J.
- Heffernan, Michael R.
- Hennessy, Michael Joseph.
- Hennessy, Thomas.
- Henry, Mark.
- Hogan, Patrick (Galway).
- Holohan, Richard.
- Jordan, Michael.
- Kelly, Patrick Michael.
- Keogh, Myles.
- Law, Hugh Alexander.
- O'Higgins, Thos.
- O'Mahony, Dermot Gun.
- O'Reilly, John J.
- O'Sullivan, Gearoid.
- O'Sullivan, John Marcus.
- Rice, Vincent.
- Shaw, Patrick W.
- Sheehy, Timothy (West Cork).
- Thrift, William Edward.
- Tierney, Michael.
- Vaughan, Daniel.
- White, John.
- White, Vincent Joseph.
- Wolfe, George.
Níl
- Aiken, Frank.
- Anthony, Richard.
- Blaney, Neal.
- Boland, Patrick.
- Bourke, Daniel.
- Brady, Seán.
- Briscoe, Robert.
- Broderick, Henry.
- Buckley, Daniel.
- Carney, Frank.
- Cassidy, Archie J.
- Colbert, James.
- Colohan, Hugh.
- Cooney, Eamon.
- Corkery, Dan.
- Corish, Richard.
- Crowley, Fred. Hugh.
- Crowley, Tadhg.
- Davin, William.
- Doyle, Edward.
- Everett, James.
- Fahy, Frank.
- Flinn, Hugo.
- Fogarty, Andrew.
- French, Seán.
- Gorry, Patrick J.
- Goulding, John.
- Hayes, Seán.
- Houlihan, Patrick.
- Jordan, Stephen.
- Kennedy, Michael Joseph.
- Kent, William R.
- Kerlin, Frank.
- Killilea, Mark.
- Kilroy, Michael.
- Lemass, Seán F.
- McEllistrim, Thomas.
- MacEntee, Seán.
- Moore, Séamus.
- Mullins, Thomas.
- O'Connell, Thomas J.
- O'Dowd, Patrick Joseph.
- O'Kelly, Seán T.
- O'Leary, William.
- O'Reilly, Matthew.
- O'Reilly, Thomas.
- Powell, Thomas P.
- Ruttledge, Patrick J.
- Ryan, James.
- Sexton, Martin.
- Tubridy, John.
- Walsh, Richard.
- Ward, Francis C.
Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Duggan and P.S. Doyle; Níl, Deputies Flinn and Briscoe.
Question:—"That Section 5 stand part of the Bill"—put.
Motion declared carried. Section ordered to stand part of the Bill.
SECTION 5.
In every trial before a judge and jury of a person charged with any crime or offence, a majority vote of nine members of the jury shall be sufficient to determine the verdict and the judge shall so inform the jury and the verdict of such nine members or upwards shall be taken and recorded as the verdict of the jury without disclosure of the number or identity of the dissentients, if any.
Mr. O'Connell
I move amendment 28:—
In line 65, page 3, after the word "offence" to insert the words "other than a crime for which the penalty of death may be inflicted."
This amendment in my name is one that is put forward in very great seriousness and earnestness, and I sincerely hope the Minister will see his way to accept it. When speaking on the Second Reading of the Bill I urged very strongly that whatever may be the case in civil actions, whatever may be the claim made for a majority verdict, it should not apply in cases where a man's life and liberty are at stake. I am going further in this amendment in the way of restricting the section and confining it entirely to cases where a man's life is at stake. I plead very earnestly that a man's life should not be taken away if, as is the intention of this amendment, there are three out of twelve who may have a definite conscientious doubt that the evidence was sufficiently clear to enable them to say that the accused person was guilty.
The Minister knows better than I do that there have been cases in history where there have been miscarriages of justice. Not very long ago, we had a case in England or Scotland which I am sure is familiar to all Deputies, known as the Slater case, in which there was a miscarriage of justice. It was only years afterwards it was discovered that there had been a miscarriage of justice in that case. The man was released and compensation paid to him. If it had been a case where the death penalty had been imposed and had been carried out, no reparation could have been made, because the man would have gone beyond recall. I do not think it is necessary for me to dwell at any great length on this amendment. I do not know why the Minister could not have seen his way to make an exception in this particular class of offence where the death penalty may be inflicted. The Minister will correct me if I am wrong when I say that I think in the majority of murder cases there is no direct evidence available. There is nobody available who actually sees the murder committed. Therefore, the conviction in such a case will depend on the strength of circumstantial evidence. It is on matters of that kind that men may have a genuine conscientious doubt as to whether or not a chain of circumstantial evidence is so perfect that they are able to say without any shadow of doubt in their minds, "This man is guilty, and he has committed this crime." I hold that, if there are three men in twelve who conscientiously believe that there is room for doubt, the State should not proceed to record a verdict of guilty with the possible consequence of the death penalty being carried out. It should be so clear that twelve men can say definitely and clearly, without any shadow of doubt, "This man is guilty." I urge the Minister not to make such a violent and radical change in our legal system, such as has existed up to the present time, as would be brought about by the introduction of such a very drastic section as this is, and I ask him to accept the amendment.
There is just another point that I would like to raise. It was brought to my notice some time ago, after the publication of this Bill. I feel a certain difficulty about raising it, because I have come to learn that language which means one thing to an ordinary individual may mean another and an entirely different thing to a lawyer. It was pointed out to me that the wording, "a majority vote of nine members of the jury," means nothing; that in fact where you have twelve people you cannot have, under any circumstances, a majority of nine. If you have eleven for and one against, you have a majority of ten. If you have two for and ten against you have a majority of eight. What would happen in this particular case is what the Minister has in mind and what is clearly the intention: a majority of six, with nine holding one particular view, and three another view. If nine are for conviction, then a verdict of guilty is recorded. I want to warn the Minister, but perhaps, as I say, it is foolish for a layman to talk in this particular strain to a lawyer. The wording of the section is open to an interpretation other than that which is likely to be put upon it by the ordinary layman. That, however, is only, as I have said, a small point. My main reason for moving the amendment is that I feel a citizen ought not to be deprived of his life unless the evidence is so clear that twelve citizens can be found who will say definitely, without any shadow of doubt, "This man is guilty." I think there is a risk in doing otherwise, a risk that ought not to be taken. I would quote again what has been quoted before, that it is better that ninety-nine wrong-doers should go free than that one innocent person should be unjustly punished.
When it is a case of taking away a man's life it is a very serious proposition indeed that the State should proceed to do that while one-fourth of the jury may have a genuine doubt. Perhaps the Minister is trying to provide for a case where men deliberately set themselves out to prevent a verdict being obtained, and where they deliberately perjure themselves, but I maintain that in trying to do that he is also bringing in the case where there may be a genuine doubt, and he is doing nothing, and can do nothing, to avoid the case where there is, in fact, a genuine doubt in the minds of one-fourth of the jury as to whether a man is guilty or otherwise. Where the death penalty may be imposed and a man's life may be taken away, no reparation that can ever be made in this world would be of any use. I do say we should not introduce that type of legislation, that drastic and radical change in the Bill which is now admitted to be a temporary measure for the protection of juries. If the Minister can show how this particular change operates to protect juries I will be surprised. He attempted to do so on the Second Reading, but I think anybody listening to him must say that he failed to bring conviction in his arguments. I ask the Minister and the House to pause before they make a change which, in my opinion, is a very drastic one and may be attended with very grave consequences.
Although it is the intention of Deputies on this side of the House to support this amendment, and the amendment in the name of Deputy Ruttledge—No. 30 on the Order Paper—we wish it to be clear that in doing so we are in no way, even by implication, expressing approval of the principle of majority verdicts in criminal trials.
Mr. O'Connell
That is my position, too.
It is our intention to vote against this section whether this amendment is carried or not. We are hoping, however, that such a reasonable case can be put forward in favour of the amendment that even those who accept the principle of the Bill, and who supported the Bill on Second Reading, may be induced to agree to this amendment at this stage. It was, I think, one of the recognised principles of criminal law that a person charged with an offence was to be considered innocent of that offence until twelve impartial men empanelled as a jury were convinced of his guilt. It is true that this principle has been departed from in this Bill, but we think the case for re-establishing it in cases where the death penalty may be imposed is so strong that the Minister for Justice, and those others who support the Bill, may be induced to accept it. It is proposed under this measure, as it stands, that a man charged with a capital offence might be sent to the gallows and executed, although on the jury that tried him three of the members were convinced of his innocence on the evidence. If a man is charged, and if on the evidence produced in court the jury are unanimous as to his guilt, it can be taken as fairly certain that the man was guilty, but even, as Deputy O'Connell pointed out, in cases where unanimous verdicts operate miscarriages of justice have taken place. If that is possible where an unanimous verdict of the jury was required for conviction, how much more possible is it in cases where only a majority verdict of the jury will be necessary? It seems to us an extraordinary proposition to execute any man, no matter what his crime, if on the evidence which can be produced against him three men out of twelve on the jury which return the verdict are convinced that that particular man was innocent of the crime with which he was charged.
I do not know what the attitude of the Minister for Justice is likely to be. I think, however, we will find the Government are taking up in respect of this Bill the rigid attitude which they have taken up in respect of other Bills. They do not appear to accept the view that they could be wrong in any detail. They have in practically all the Bills introduced into this House rigorously and vigorously opposed every amendment brought forward by members outside their own Party. They are convinced they are right and that anybody who attempts to criticise them must be wrong. I do not know, A Chinn Comhairle, if it is your intention to put the amendments to this section separately, or whether it is your intention to put the motion "That the words proposed to be deleted stand part."
I am proposing to put Deputy O'Connell's amendment No. 28 in the form in which it appears on the Paper, and to take Deputy Ruttledge's amendment then. It would not matter how that amendment is put. If amendment 28 is defeated, I would propose the Question on amendment 30, with the words, "or any capital offence," deleted, because amendment 28 is decisive of that point.
I was anxious to know whether it was intended to put amendment 30 with amendment 28. To confine my remarks to Deputy O'Connell's amendment, I think I can summarise the arguments in favour of it by saying that we are opposed to majority verdicts in criminal trials of any kind where the capital penalty may be imposed, because it is in the interests of elementary justice that a jury trying a person charged should be unanimous as to its verdict. I believe there would be very little public confidence in the justice of a verdict under which a person was executed when one-fourth of the jury were convinced that he was not guilty. Ministers, no doubt, are aware that very often there is a large section of public opinion doubtful as to the correctness of verdicts which are arrived at unanimously. That volume of public opinion would be much stronger, and would probably become vocal, in the case of a verdict arrived at by a majority vote. I, therefore, think the Minister would be acting wisely, from his own point of view, if he were to accept Deputy O'Connell's amendment. We will be able to make out another case for the amendment in Deputy Ruttledge's name. The case for this amendment is so strong that I would be very anxious to hear the Minister for Justice speaking on it.
I recognise the sincerity and earnestness with which Deputy O'Connell put this amendment, though I regret I cannot accept the amendment as put forward. Deputy O'Connell raised a point with which I shall shortly deal. The section runs: "In every trial before a judge and jury of a person charged with any crime or offence a majority vote of nine members of the jury shall be sufficient to determine the verdict...." That does not mean that there shall be a majority of nine, as the Deputy seems to think.
Mr. O'Connell
Why put in the word "majority"?
That means that there is a majority and a minority, and that the majority shall consist of nine. That is what the meaning of a majority vote is. For instance, supposing the majority vote in a division here was 60, and the minority vote 50, it would mean there was a majority vote of 60. What the majority of nine there means is that in the majority there are nine. I may point out to the Deputy, also, that in the Courts of Justice Act, setting up a majority verdict in civil actions, the wording is exactly the same as here, and it has never been questioned.
Mr. O'Connell
That does not make this right.
To my mind it is perfectly clear.
Has the Minister got competent legal opinion on the subject?
Yes. It does not say there shall be a majority of nine. It says there shall be a majority vote. That is to say, those that are in the majority shall number nine.
Mr. O'Connell
Why put in the word "majority" there at all?
Because it is the more happy way of putting it.
Mr. O'Connell
Why not "a vote of nine members of the jury"?
To my mind it is perfectly clear. If anybody wishes at any future time to challenge it, let him challenge it, but it certainly has stood unchallenged in another Act, and appears to me, at any rate, to be perfectly plain and simple. Deputy O'Connell cited a particular case which was recently heard—the Slater case. He might also cite another case which made a very considerable amount of stir some years ago—the Beck case. The Beck case, whenever there is circumstantial evidence given, and when there is a question of identity, is always used by defending counsel before a jury to show them the possibility of making a mistake. I would be really ashamed to say how many times in the old days I have used that case myself as an illustration of the possibility of mistakes being made in identity. I rubbed that in as far as ever I could, you may be sure. That was a case in which there was a clear verdict by twelve jurymen. If you press Deputy O'Connell's argument to its logical conclusion you should never act on a clear verdict of twelve jurymen. That is the logical conclusion.
Mr. O'Connell
No.
It is not the logical conclusion?
Mr. O'Connell
No. Why not make it seven and five?
So you could.
Mr. O'Connell
The Minister's argument will be illogical then. The chances of miscarriages will be greater still than with nine and three.
That is not the Deputy's argument. His argument is, from the illustration which he has given, that twelve cannot go wrong.
Mr. O'Connell
No. I said if there have been miscarriages where there was a clear verdict of twelve, the chances of a miscarriage where only nine are necessary, and three have any doubt, are much greater. I thought I made that point clear. If I did not, Deputy Lemass emphasised it.
The Deputy's point then is that twelve are more certain if they find a person guilty—they are more reasonably certain to be right than nine would be. I quite agree with that. I absolutely agree that if you have twelve persons unanimous in a view it is probably stronger—almost certain to be stronger—than with nine. I shall accept that argument if you like. But you may have, at the same time, miscarriages with a verdict of twelve just as you may have miscarriages in a jury where there is a majority verdict. I think if the Deputy was going to establish that it was unsafe to have nine as a majority, and that a prisoner was unduly jeopardised by having a majority verdict of nine out of twelve he would have to go a great deal further than he has gone, and would have to show that English law is the only law under which a person gets a fair trial. The Deputy, I am sure, is aware that it is only under English law, and only in places to which English law is extended—and not even quite in all of them, because in some States of America the unanimous verdict has been done away with—that a unanimous verdict is required. In all other countries to which English law does not extend there always is a majority verdict. For instance, in the neighbouring country of Scotland persons are found guilty, sentenced to death and executed upon a majority verdict. I think it is pressing things too far to say that the criminal law in Scotland, in France, and all over Europe, whose civilisation is as old and certainly as high as English civilisation—French, Italian, German and Spanish civilisation—is not as effective as English law, which is the only one that does require a unanimous verdict.
Moreover, you have in this country a Court of Criminal Appeal. Up to recently you had no such court. The Court of Criminal Appeal is a very good safeguard to any prisoner, because the State cannot appeal to that court. If there is any miscarriage of justice in allowing a guilty person to go free, through any mistake, through a bad verdict of the jury, through a misdirection of the judge, or anything of that kind, there is no appeal to the Court of Criminal Appeal by the State. On the other hand, any person who has been found guilty has got an appeal to that court, and if the verdict is an unreasonable verdict, wrong in law, unsupported by evidence, or in fact, by unsatisfactory proof of identification—if there is any reasonable ground for doubt that court will set that verdict aside, and has set many verdicts aside.
Deputy O'Connell said that cases of murder are largely based upon circumstantial evidence. They are —a great number of them, at any rate. But it is a great mistake to think that you cannot arrive at absolute certainly on circumstantial evidence. You can. As a matter of fact, you will find in some of the law text-books the proposition stated— in my judgment stated too strongly —that on circumstantial evidence a jury can act with more confidence than on direct evidence, because there is a tag: "Men may lie, but circumstances cannot." You get so many circumstances and draw your own conclusions from them. I personally, think that that is very much overstated, but I quote it to show the Deputy that writers of books on evidence and other trained persons hold the view that you can reach absolute certainty, not in the sense of mathematical certainty, but certainty which is a guide to men in their daily life, which is the only guide we can have, just as well on circumstantial evidence and just as fairly and accurately as upon direct evidence.
Mr. O'Connell
I agree. That strengthens my argument. If that is the case, it is all the more reason why, if three men out of the jury have a doubt and express that doubt, there must be something weak in the chain of circumstantial evidence. I am assuming that it is bona fide.
The same would apply to direct evidence— exactly the same. I was merely addressing myself to that point to show that in my opinion, at any rate, there is no real difference between a verdict found upon circumstantial evidence and a verdict found upon direct evidence. Look at the question now as it stands. What will happen? Nine persons find a verdict of guilty. There are three others. Deputy Lemass told us there were three men convinced of the innocence of the accused. Of course, that does not follow at all. Nine men may be convinced of his guilt, but it does not follow that three men are convinced of his innocence. The whole twelve members of a jury may acquit a man, not one of them being convinced of his innocence. The whole twelve may acquit a man, every single one of them morally certain that the man is guilty, but there is not sufficient evidence. Acquittal of a man by a jury does not show, affirmatively, that the jury believes he is innocent. It simply says the jury are not satisfied that he is guilty. If you get nine men who are perfectly satisfied in their own minds that there is no room for any reasonable doubt that the person charged before the court is a guilty person, and has committed the crime with which he is charged, why should that not be sufficient? Of the other three men, one of them may be swayed by one consideration, another by another consideration, and another by another, apart from the evidence altogether. If you have your nine why should not that be adequate? And over and above that nine you have the Court of Criminal Appeal. If nine sensible ordinary citizens are of the opinion that a man is guilty surely that ought to be sufficient.
The Deputy says that a majority verdict should not apply in any criminal proceedings but that especially it should not apply to murder. I would point out that though murder may be followed, and is followed by a more severe penalty, it does not follow that murder is always the hardest to prove. There may be a case in which the penalty would be only penal servitude and, at the same time, the proof of that case may be a great deal more difficult than the proof in a case of murder would be. If it follows that the finding guilty on a charge of murder, and the finding guilty on any other charge, requires exactly the same type and class of evidence the duty of the jury is the same in each case. It is never laid down, and could not be laid down, that a stronger class of evidence is required in murder than in any other case. The law is different from that. The law is that exactly the same amount of evidence is required in every case before a verdict of guilty can be entered.
Deputy O'Connell went further and said he would like to know how this provision is a protection to juries. If Deputies will look at the section as it stands they will see that a verdict of nine is sufficient. How the jury vote is not known. It is not known whether it was a verdict of twelve or a verdict of nine. Nothing is known about it except that at least nine have found the man guilty. Persons who wish to terrorise jurymen will only wish to terrorise jurymen who have found their confederates in crime guilty. They will not wish to murder jurymen who have acquitted their confederates in crime. If there is a majority verdict, with three dissentients, and nine for conviction, these persons of criminal intent will not know which of the twelve to follow and murder, or harass, in any way, because they will not know who were the persons who voted for conviction and who were the persons who were for acquittal. That will not be known. So even if they managed to find out the names of the jurors who served on the jury they will not know whether any particular man was or was not in favour of conviction.
At the present moment, if there is a unanimous verdict and they find out the names of the persons who served on the jury, they know that every single one of the twelve found the prisoner guilty. Any single one of these twelve may be the object of their vengeance, whichever one they could get. They could get at each one more easily and possibly at the whole twelve. On the other hand, if there is a majority verdict they will not know which of the twelve has been for conviction and which individual has been for acquittal. That is a matter they will not know and, in that respect, there is a very considerable safeguard for juries, Go a little further. Take the question of murder. Suppose now you have a murder like, let me say, the murder of young Mr. Armstrong, or the murder of that kind of person, and that a person was put on trial for that particular murder, or any murder of a similar nature, or any murder carried out by this murder gang, is not that a type of case in which the jury would require extra special protection? You may be perfectly certain that if the guilty persons are found and put on trial for that murder, or any other murder, and the evidence against them is clear, no effort will be spared by their confederates to secure their acquittal. That, I think, is perfectly clear and self-evident, and in the present crisis that we are going through it would not be safe in capital charges to have an exemption made from what, I hope, will be the ordinary rule. This Bill, of course, with the amendment which I have put down, the reasons for which I explained the other day, if carried through in its present form, will expire in 1931. We will have experience of the working of it in that time; we will see precisely how this majority verdict works out, and if it requires amendment then it can be amended, but it is my belief that this majority verdict will be accepted generally, as a rule, as the best method of obtaining justice between the State and the prisoner.
I could go on to show how in a great number of instances a majority verdict will be of the greatest help to the prisoner, though it hardly arises on this amendment. But if a prisoner has got nine persons, has got ten persons, has got eleven persons, satisfied that there is no evidence against him, or even if the prisoner has got eleven persons satisfied of his innocence—that he had set up an alibi and that they were perfectly satisfied about it—it certainly does appear to be rather hard luck that the prisoner should be held in custody and put on his trial again because there is one dissentient, or two dissentients, or three dissentients. As I say, this is a provision as much in favour of the prisoner as it is in favour of the State. It is a provision under which the prisoner, if he is innocent, will most distinctly gain.
It is very regrettable that upon an issue of this sort the Party which will be responsible, if it accepts the lead of the Minister and of the Government, for making a far-reaching change in the legal procedure which determines the life or death of a citizen of this State, should be so markedly absent from the House. I know, of course, that those weary feet which have been all day long upon the legislative treadmill are crying out for ease, but I do submit that, however weary these Deputies are, they ought at least to come in and listen to the arguments that are advanced against the change which the Minister now proposes to make.
Deputy O'Connell made the very strong point that this alteration in the law which the Minister proposes —to dispense with the unanimous verdict of the jury in all criminal cases, even in cases involving the death penalty to a citizen, and to substitute for it a majority verdict of the jury—does not appear to have anything at all to do with the protection of jurors. The only argument which the Minister advanced against that point was that possibly three persons might not have assented to the opinion of the majority, that possibly three persons might have voted for the acquittal of the prisoner, and therefore these desperate men who will stop at nothing, who, according to the Minister, will not even spare the life of a man who has done his duty in accordance with his oath and in accordance with the evidence put before him, will be deterred from terrorising juries by the fact that possibly—not certainly, but only possibly—some three members of that jury might have voted for acquittal.
I say that if the conspiracy is so desperate as the Minister alleges in justification for this Bill, the men who would take the life of jurymen in order to prevent the jury system from operating will not be stopped and will not be held in their career by the fact that possibly—again I say only possibly, not certainly— some three members of a jury might have voted for the acquittal of a particular prisoner. I think, therefore, that the excuse which the Minister has put forward for including this section in a Bill which he declares was introduced mainly to protect jurors is a flimsy and an unsustainable one, and I do hope that Deputies who believe that some reasonable ground for the other sections of the Bill does exist, so far as those charges are concerned on which, if the prisoner is proved guilty, a death penalty will inevitably follow, will, at any rate, ask the Minister to reconsider his attitude in the matter, and to accept the amendment which Deputy O'Connell has proposed. I am addressing myself strictly to the amendment. We on this side of the House take up the attitude which has been expressed by Deputy Lemass. We do not feel that in any criminal issue a good case has been made for abolishing the unanimous verdict of the jury and accepting instead the contrary principle of a majority verdict.
I think that the speech which the Minister made in support of the section was the weakest speech that could possibly be made in defence of it. He missed the whole point. It does not matter whether the verdict is given by a majority of twenty, or of twelve, or of nine, or of three. The big principle is this, that every individual who heard the whole evidence in the case should be convinced of the guilt of the prisoner before a conviction could take place. That is the principle—not a mere principle of a majority verdict, that nine persons may be convinced of his guilt, and three persons, who heard the same evidence, may be doubtful about it, but that each person who heard that evidence, who heard it sifted by trained cross-examiners on both sides, might have no reasonable doubt in his mind before he doomed the man to death. That is the big principle involved, and that is the principle which we say should be retained in at least all cases involving the life and death of a citizen of this State.
Deputy O'Connell made the strong point that in the great majority of cases only circumstantial evidence can be adduced. Very seldom is there direct testimony as to what happened, and we know that, after all, the verdicts in cases which depend solely on circumstantial evidence are arrived at by the piecing together by fallible human minds of certain links in a chain, and from that deducing certain conclusions. Important facts may not be adduced at all in the course of a trial, and consequently circumstantial evidence—as the Minister himself admitted happened in two known cases, in the case of Beck and in the case of Slater—will be hopelessly wrong. In the case of Beck. I think the verdict of guilty was a unanimous verdict a verdict returned by an English jury, in which all the twelve jurors concurred. Nevertheless it was clearly established afterwards beyond any doubt that the verdict in that case was an erroneous one. Beck was sent to penal servitude on a comparatively minor issue. He was not executed. He served a term of years in penal servitude, and though I am not going to say that the wrong, done to him was irreparable, anyone who has been in penal servitude knows that a man who serves a long term of penal servitude has endured something that cannot possibly be made good again so far as his character or his ability to earn his own livelihood is concerned; but anyway his life was left to him. But when a man is executed, his life is gone beyond recall. Therefore our argument is that since juries, even upon minor issues, have clearly returned erroneous verdicts, even when they have returned unanimous verdicts, the State ought to be very careful before it determines that a citizen shall be sent to his death upon anything except the unanimous concurrence in such a decision by every man in the jury-box who has heard the evidence.
Take the case of Slater. Slater, I believe, was tried by a Scotch jury, and the verdict in that case was not a unanimous verdict but was a majority verdict. He was tried for murder and he might have been executed. Years afterwards it was found that certain evidence was inadmissible, and the man, after serving twenty years of imprisonment, was liberated. But suppose it had been found that not only had certain evidence been inadmissible but that certain evidence tendered had been false and misleading and that man had been condemned to death by the majority verdict of a jury, would not that be argued and advanced by the Minister himself, if some other Party had been responsible for introducing this section, as the strongest possible point that could be made against a majority verdict?
An Leas-Cheann Comhairle took the Chair.
We refer to the Slater case because it was a case in which a majority verdict was given, a majority verdict which afterwards three judges held to be an erroneous verdict. We contend, therefore, that in cases where the issue is so grave as to involve the life or death of a human being, no verdict of guilty should be returned unless it has, as I said, the unanimous concurrence of every member of the jury who heard the evidence.
I am not going to deal at length with the further point which the Minister made, that this provision was as fair to the prisoner as to the State. I put that to you this way: The prisoner in the cases covered by the amendment introduced by Deputy O'Connell is being tried for his life. If the possibility of error exists, and if he, as an innocent man, is done to death, is it any compensation for him to know that subsequently that error may operate in the other direction, and that a guilty man may escape? Yet that is the justification which the Minister advances to this House; that is the compensation for the State sending an innocent man to his death—that the State, on the other hand, may possibly allow a guilty man to escape by the operation of this majority verdict. Consequently the whole position of the Minister resolves itself into this, that it does not matter whether the guilty escapes or the innocent perishes. Simply because the Minister happens to have a personal prepossession in favour of the majority verdict, that is to be embodied in a Bill of this sort, and in what is a mere passing situation in this State. Taking advantage of a temporary crisis, he is going to make this fundamental change in the legal procedure which determines the life and death of a citizen. In view of that I think no member of this House, unless he is firmly convinced in his own mind that the advantages in favour of a majority verdict in cases involving the death penalty are overwhelming, should vote for the section as it stands, but should accept and support Deputy O'Connell's amendment. You may not be able to support him in the Division Lobby for party reasons. I do not want to put it to you that way, but at any rate, between now and the Report Stage, any Deputy who is not fully convinced on the issue ought to bring such pressure to bear on the Minister as will ensure that an amendment in the terms of Deputy O'Connell's amendment will be introduced, so that at least on issues involving the life or death of a prisoner a unanimous verdict of the jury will be required.
Deputy MacEntee said that the great principle he was contending for was that every person who heard the whole evidence should be convinced of the guilt of the prisoner. Now that principle does not operate at present, and I do not think criminal justice could possibly be carried on with that principle operating, because it might still happen that a bigger proportion than one-fourth of all the jurors who heard the case were not convinced of the guilt, and yet the prisoner might be found guilty. You might have a man tried with seven jurors believing that he should not be convicted, five jurors believing that he should be convicted. That man might be put on trial again, as he would be after a disagreement, and you might then, with another jury, get an agreement, and you might have him convicted with, as I say, instead of six out of twenty-four against a conviction, seven out of twenty-four against a conviction. The principle that Deputy MacEntee tried to urge upon the House as something sacred is a principle which in fact does not exist. Actually we have the same principle as the majority verdict in operation at the present time, but in operation in a different way. It operates now by putting a man on trial again and again. Generally he is not put on trial after the third time, but cases have been known where he was put on trial more than three times. I think quite recently a man was put on trial four times. There is no reason why he should not be put on trial five or six times, although in each case there might be —until the conviction takes place, if there is not agreement—not three, but a majority of the jury against him. It is quite a well-established principle that a man might be convicted—murderers and other criminals very frequently are convicted— although a certain number of jurors who have tried him are not satisfied to bring in a verdict of guilty, so that in setting up a majority verdict we are not really departing nearly so far from the root principle of the present law as the Deputy would make out. It would be perfectly legitimate and logical for Deputy MacEntee to make the case he has been making here, if the law now was that a prisoner was put on trial before a jury of twelve, but if there was no conviction by that jury, either through disagreement or through finding a verdict of not guilty, the prisoner could never again be put on trial.
Then we would be making a very considerable change here. It is very difficult to see much reason why a difference should be made between crimes that are of a capital character and other crimes, because although no reparation can be made in case a mistake occurs and a capital sentence is carried out, whereas some sort of reparation may be made in other cases, the fact cannot be overlooked that the likelihood of a capital sentence being carried out on an innocent man is so slight as to make such an occurrence almost an impossibility. You have, in the first place, the jury much more reluctant to convict in a capital case than in a case which would involve a term of imprisonment or penal servitude. The ordinary citizen who goes into the jury box is not a man who is case-hardened in dealing with crime and needs to have what is to him not merely convincing but overwhelming evidence of guilt before he will convict in a murder case.
The safeguard which the Court of Criminal Appeal provides makes it impossible that the jury will convict because a case has been improperly tried. Before a Court of Criminal Appeal existed the idiosyncrasies and the weakness of a judge might sometimes lead to a case not being as fully put before a jury as it ought to be, but with the Court of Criminal Appeal the case has to be extremely carefully conducted by the prosecution and the presiding judge. As a matter of fact, the existence of the Court of Criminal Appeal means that if even some slight technical error is made, something that has scarcely any effect on the case at all, the sentence is very likely to be quashed. If anything of any importance whatever, by way of omission or commission, was wrong in the trial the verdict is sure to be set aside by the Court of Criminal Appeal, and all murder cases are automatically brought before it for review by the counsel representing the prisoner. In a case, therefore, where the death sentence may be imposed you have to have a verdict by a jury, whether it is a majority or the full number, every juryman being reluctant to give his verdict, and reluctant, as all individuals will be, to bear the responsibility of putting a fellow-man to death whatever his crimes may be. You have then that case for a certainty reviewed by the Court of Criminal Appeal and the verdict quashed if there is the slightest evidence that there was anything that could be objected to in the conduct of the trial or even if there was any technical error on the part of the trial judge or the prosecution.
Then, after the verdict has been given and has been upheld by the Court of Criminal Appeal you have, on behalf of the Executive, a careful investigation of the case. All the evidence is read. The judge's charge is read. The judge himself is invited to make any additional comments to indicate if he sees any reason for entertaining the slightest doubt as to the verdict of his jury, and if he sees any reason for regarding the case as one in which, because of any other special circumstances, the prerogative of mercy should be exercised. You have the whole Executive compelled to consider the case and to consider the judge's comments, and if they see any reason they recommend the commuting of the sentence. With all those safeguards the possibility of a prisoner who is not guilty being executed in my opinion does not exist. If one thinks of a period of time like 100 years or something like that, an error may occur in spite of all precautions and all safeguards, but in my view, unless one is prepared to think of some long period of time like that, it is absolutely safe to say that the execution of a prisoner who is not guilty of the offence with which he has been charged is a thing that cannot occur.
I think that Deputy MacEntee is entirely wrong in suggesting that in these murder cases there would be no protection in a majority verdict. Even the people who are in the murder gang have their fears, and perhaps some of their instruments take screwing up to do the work they are sent to do. It will not be so easy to get the instruments or to screw those instruments up to carry out the crime their leaders desire if the shooters cannot have some feeling of certainty that the individual they were sent out to shoot did the thing they were sent to murder him for. The question of uncertainty in these matters will affect even the members of the murder gang. There is another thing that should not be neglected in this matter and it is apart from the actual protection of the juror. It is the question of the man who may not have doubts but who may be timorous and who might, in a case where he was absolutely certain of guilt, procure the acquittal of a man who might have perhaps carried out recent murders.
There is a further matter in connection with this question of intimidation. It is not so much that men who want to intimidate jurors and who have carried out a murder already for that purpose believe that they can terrorise everybody. What encourages them in their terrorism is the belief that there will be one or two weak men on any jury and that by holding out the threat over every juror they will make those one or two weak men refuse to convict when they ought to convict. I have no belief at all that if it was found impossible to terrorise jurors that the murder of jurors out of any mere spirit of revenge would continue. I believe myself if, in spite of all terrorism, convictions went on that then the terrorism would cease. Anything that we have had experience of in the way of attempts to impede the ordinary working of State machinery has shown that if the thing will not succeed, if it is futile, then it is abandoned. The majority verdict, by making it impossible for the one or two men who might possibly be frightened to prevent conviction, will tend to put an end to the policy of terrorism. Even if this were to be changed, as the Minister for Justice has suggested, at the end of two years, when the Bill was being reconsidered, we ought not in the case of a jury dealing with any type of offence at the present stage, to encourage terrorism by making it easy for the people who are engaged in that to frighten jurors. It ought to be necessary for them, if they want to prevent conviction, to frighten at least four out of the twelve. I think they would find it very difficult to do that. There are, I think, good reasons why a majority verdict should apply in all cases. We are not making it severer for the major criminal than for the minor criminal. We ought not to make a man feel, if he kills, with the unanimous verdict in operation, he can rely on no conviction, but if he wounds, then he is in for it, because he will be convicted by a majority verdict. I think there is every reason for having a majority verdict in all cases. I think there is no danger, with the safeguards that exist, with the disposition of the jury not to convict in a capital offence, with the review of the Court of Criminal Appeal, and the review that will afterwards take place by the Executive, of a person being sent to the gallows for an offence of which he was not guilty.
I think we are all agreed that it is a serious thing that an innocent man should be condemned to death, but it is an equally serious thing that a murderer should be allowed to walk the streets in order to commit further murders. What that boils itself down to is what are the best means of giving an honest trial and arriving at an honest verdict, whether by a jury of twelve, which, in order to arrive at a verdict, must be unanimous, and where it is only necessary to intimidate, influence or canvass any one of the twelve in order to have an unjust or dishonest decision, or a jury of twelve in which it was necessary to have nine in order to arrive at a verdict, or, in other words, to influence at least four in the direction of dishonesty. It is at least four times as hard to influence four men as it is to influence one. There is also the point that with the unanimous verdict, if a verdict is arrived at, then it is clear that each and every one of the twelve agreed to that particular decision, but with the majority verdict of nine nobody need know and should know the particular nine who voted for the verdict arrived at. That certainly should lead to a more honest consideration of the evidence, and a more honest verdict at the termination of the trial. As far as I know, the number twelve has no particular charm. There is nothing particularly remarkable about the number twelve any more than the number nine. I expect at one time it was a figure which was arbitrarily arrived at, and the only thing which appears to make it sacred in the minds of certain Deputies is that it is the figure adopted by the English Government in English courts. It is extraordinary that the Party which cries out loudest against England and anything English, also cries out loudest when there is any departure from English precedent. The only other Government that adopts this system of the unanimous verdict of twelve is the English Government.
There is no such suggestion made by jurists or others that the law right over Europe is bad or that there is any higher percentage of unjust decisions elsewhere. If the reasons advanced for the introduction of this Bill are genuine, if in fact there has been, and is, a conspiracy to interfere with the honest action of the jurors empanelled on a trial, then there is certainly a much stronger case for carrying out this particular portion of the Bill when a man is being tried for a capital offence, than in an ordinary minor crime, because if a juryman is to be intimidated, if there is a danger of his losing his life, there is certainly more danger when he condemns any man to death than when he condemns him to a term of imprisonment. If, as we do believe, there was reason for the Bill and there was a definite conspiracy to intimidate jurors, possibly to murder them, then the reasons for this majority verdict apply more strongly in cases where men are tried for their lives than in any other cases. There might be some ground for the criticism advanced if it were purely a slender majority verdict. But what happens is that there must be nine members of the jury, not eight or seven, honestly convinced of the prisoner's guilt before the prisoner is found guilty. I consider that is far more likely to bring about an honest decision than through a jury of twelve when it is only necessary to influence or intimidate one of the twelve.
I listened very attentively to the Minister for Justice, to the Minister for Finance, and also to Deputy O'Higgins. The burden of their speeches appeared to emphasise and stress the difficulty of getting unanimous verdicts in such cases as this measure attempts to provide for. We all know the difficulty experienced in cases of this kind in getting unanimous verdicts. In my view there has been a very serious omission. I say, after full consideration having been given by me to what I am going to say, that there has been a serious omission on the part of the Minister for Justice in this matter, seeing the way in which he lauded the systems of justice in other countries, that he did not at all take into consideration that much of these great difficulties would be obviated if we had what is the practice in Scotland, a third verdict—"not proven." There are many cases, and any juryman or any man who has had experience on juries on murder trials particularly must know, that even where twelve men and true agree to a verdict, one or two had to be won over by the other ten or eleven. It is just as easy, or it is as likely rather to happen, that seven or eight might believe in a prisoner's guilt and four or five might have a conscientious objection to finding the prisoner guilty because of their belief that the circumstantial evidence would not justify then in doing it—which would mean, of course, in the case of a capital offence a verdict depriving the prisoner of his life. I think Deputy O'Connell has made out a good case for his amendment. If, for instance, the Minister for Justice were to include in his Bill a section which would provide for the third verdict to which I refer, it would not alone be a step towards modernising the law in such cases but it would also have other effects, and I am convinced that it would in a large measure help to remove a good deal of the intimidation which is said to exist and which I believe does exist in the City of Dublin. I do not know that it exists in any other part of the Saorstát.
I feel very strongly on this matter. Where a man's life is at stake it is a serious thing that a majority, or the number which according to this Bill is described as a majority— that nine men who may believe that that man is guilty of murder, or other offence that will meet with the death penalty, may send that man to his death. That man because these nine persons say he is guilty goes to his death while there are three who say he is innocent. It is a serious thing that in such a case a man should be sent to his death. I would ask the Minister to reconsider this matter, and if he is not prepared to give way to Deputy O'Connell's amendment that he will consider the advisability of emulating the Scottish law in the matter and include in this measure a section or sections which will provide for the third verdict which I have suggested, namely, a verdict of not proven.
I agree with Deputy O'Connell that the inclusion of this particular provision in the Bill is not the right way to proceed. This should not be included in this Bill. It should be more a matter for the amendment of the criminal law. It has nothing whatever to do with the protection of jurors. If there is anything that this Bill has succeeded in doing it is that it has succeeded in terrorising the jurors of this country, and it has succeeded in increasing the magnitude of the alleged danger to the jurors of this country. No jurors outside the few people who have had protection forced upon them by the Government regarded seriously the necessity for the introduction of this Bill. If there had to be an amendment of the criminal law that might come up in the ordinary way and the matter could be debated in a very different way from the way in which it has been debated under this particular Bill. It is called a Juries (Protection) Bill. This is an amendment with which the criminal law has nothing whatever to do. The whole case that has been made here with regard to this provision is that nine members of the jury will not be known. I want to put it to the Minister if he wants to consider this matter seriously—suppose for a moment that a person is convicted by a majority of nine persons and there is a feeling that that person has been wrongly convicted. There is a feeling either in the country or in the particular locality that that person has been wrongly convicted. I know, and every Deputy knows, that in that case there are three men on that jury who will make it clear to everybody that they were not amongst the nine members. Everybody realises that and everybody knows that, and you are going to get the most open publicity by this method.
Every Deputy on the other side realises that. There is no oath of secrecy in the case of this jury. There is no oath that they are not going to disclose to the people outside what happened on the jury. Does anybody allege that if there was a wrong verdict brought in, and there was a national or local feeling, or strong family feeling, in the locality with regard to that verdict that the three people who were in a minority in that jury are not going to go out and state that they stood against the wrong verdict being brought in? This provision was supposed to prevent publicity. Where you had a unanimous verdict it did prevent publicity. Everybody knew the twelve were there. With this provision you are going to get, to the same extent, with perhaps a reduction to nine, making the feeling more bitter against this nine than it would be against the twelve.
Apart from that altogether, we have been twitted by Deputy O'Higgins that certain people in this House do not like anything English. Deputy O'Higgins might remember that there are people here on both sides of the House who worked together at one time and it was always admitted that there were many useful provisions in the English legal system. What we complained about in that system was its maladministration in this country. The maxim that has come down to us from that legal system of jurisprudence was that it was better that many guilty men should escape than that one innocent man should be hanged. That is an old legal maxim, and a maxim that has been accepted in the judicial system in this country in years past. It was a maxim that John Philpot Curran emphasised when certain patriots in this country were being tried for their lives. It was a maxim that, particularly through the maladministration of the law, was not applied, but it was a maxim at any rate that could have stood the test of any real or genuine legal discussion. Of course I know that Deputy O'Higgins has tried to draw the parallel or the difference that it is equally bad to have one murderer walking the street as to have one innocent man hanged. That is the meaning I drew from what he said. I do not want to misquote.
May I correct the Deputy? I think the word "equally" has been added in error. I said it is serious for one innocent man to go to his death, but it is also serious to allow a murderer to walk the street.
I do not intend in any way to misquote the Deputy, but it seems to me to be drawing, at any rate, a mathematical equation. To draw an equation like that it seems to me to put on the same plane what might be called judicial murder and what might be called ordinary murder. That is a serious position and that is a serious line of argument for any of us to go along. We should seriously consider the possibility in dealing with a measure like this that, although there are judicial murders and although judicial murders must take place in a country——
That it is one of the methods that must be adopted in order to secure the protection of juries——
Will the Deputy inform me who said judicial murders must take place?
That is the logical conclusion.
I am very sorry the Minister was having his tea, but he will find the reference in the records afterwards. I did not say it was stated, if the Minister was listening to me.
I was, very attentively.
I was referring to what Deputy O'Higgins said, and I hope I did not misquote him. What I said was that it was a matter of equation.
Deputy O'Higgins did not mention judicial murder.
Perhaps I can drive it in this time.
The Deputy would want to be more logical to drive anything in.
I said if it has to be recognised that in order to secure that every murderer must be convicted you must have judicial murder, then you must have innocent men convicted.
Both Deputy Ruttledge and the Minister for Justice have used the words "judicial murder." Would they inform us what is judicial murder?
What I mean is that a person is tried by a court, wrongly convicted and hanged. There has been a principle recognised in the legal system that the prisoner is always to get the benefit of any reasonable doubt. Does anybody suggest that that is not a proper principle to have adopted—a principle that has stood for many years and a principle that has been fairly well applied? Does anybody think it is a principle that should be departed from? If the Executive Council think, or did think, it was a principle that should not be departed from, how do they justify the proposal of this majority verdict? Surely if there are three persons out of twelve satisfied that a man is not guilty, there is a reasonable doubt. If three out of twelve reasonable men, got together in the extraordinary way that it is proposed a jury should be got together after this Bill has passed—got together in secret, in the darkness and without any proper provision being made as to how the prisoner can challenge them, as he will not have their names, and so on—do not believe that the accused man is guilty, is there not a reasonable doubt in the case? The whole case is loaded entirely against the unfortunate prisoner, but notwithstanding that there are three people who are prepared to hold that the man is not guilty. I submit that in such a case there is reasonable doubt. That has been the principle accepted in jurisprudence, in the legal system—that wherever a reasonable doubt exists the prisoner should get the benefit of that doubt.
Notwithstanding that there have been unanimous verdicts, it has been pointed out here that there have been errors in judgment and there have been wrongs done. The Vice-President, dealing with this matter, tried to get over that difficulty by stating that of course the Court of Criminal Appeal was there and it was impossible, with the Court of Criminal Appeal, for anything to go wrong. The Vice-President knows perfectly that the Court of Criminal Appeal cannot deal with the facts. It is a question of misdirection.
Does the Deputy say that the Court of Criminal Appeal cannot deal with facts?
Perhaps the Minister would allow me to make my statement.
With a statement like that, it would be hard to contain oneself.
The Minister will have to try to learn something about it. The Court of Criminal Appeal is there to deal with certain errors that may occur in the trialmis-direction by the judge, refusal to put certain questions to the jury, and so on. But there is not a real trial before the Court of Criminal Appeal. The House should remember that in the case that was quoted, the Adolph Beck case, it was a question of error in the identification. The question of error in identification is a pure question of fact that, in the ordinary way, might not come before the Court of Criminal Appeal at all. Very often in cases it is not for a considerable time afterwards that facts may be discovered which may in some way be brought to bear in the matter. The Minister for Finance suggests that even when you have passed the Court of Criminal Appeal you have still the Executive Council to appeal to. I would like the Minister for Finance to point out any cases in this country or England where that has been exercised to any greater extent than to use the prerogative of mercy and so reduce a sentence from capital punishment to one of penal servitude.
Those are some of the matters that occur to one in dealing with this subject. It does not strike anybody that a provision with regard to a majority verdict should fall within this particular Bill. It is one that might have been appropriately brought in with a Criminal Law Amendment Bill. When the Courts of Justice Act, Section 59, was being drafted, the body that considered it thought of it with regard to criminal law, I am sure. They were very careful to leave it out and to exclude it from application to the criminal law. After all, in civil cases juries and the judge have to deal with the weight of evidence and the balance of evidence. Does the Minister in this particular section propose to provide that in criminal cases it shall go by the weight of evidence and the balance of evidence; in other words, life may be taken away by the weight of evidence and the balance of evidence? Of course, certain verdicts may be got in civil cases.
Before the Minister speaks I would like to emphasise the point that he made, or seemed to make, in favour of the rejection of this amendment. I put it to him that this is no protection for juries, and, if it is not, it ought not to be in this particular Bill. As Deputy Ruttledge said, it ought to be an amendment to the ordinary criminal law, if it is considered such. The Minister made the point that it is a protection because nobody knows whether it is a majority or a unanimous verdict. I can only answer that by saying that the Minister is a lot more innocent than I have hitherto taken him to be if he believes that that will be the case. Does he believe that it will be possible if there is one dissentient, one who believes that a man should not be convicted, that that dissentient will keep that secret in his breast? I have not the slightest shadow of doubt that in every one of these cases in which there is a conviction by a majority it will be eventually known who comprised the majority and who were the minority. I am sure that the Minister, unless he is much more innocent than I take him to be——
I am afraid I am.
If that is the case I must say that I am surprised at him after two years' sitting on the Ministerial Benches.
He is both innocent and guilty.
This particular measure affords no protection. The Minister talked about the Court of Criminal Appeal. Again, why does he bring that in as an argument? Will it be a ground of appeal that it was a majority verdict? The Minister will not say that. Therefore there is no protection in any Court of Criminal Appeal. It is drawing near the fatal hour, and I would like to hear the Minister for a few minutes. Have the arguments which he has heard had no effect on him or can he hold out no promise that no consideration will be given to mitigate what I feel is a very serious action in introducing this particular measure?
It is understood, of course, that if we go beyond the time I cannot put this particular question.
How long have I?
I will give the Minister two minutes.
Is it within your discretion to give the Minister two minutes?
It is a case of calculation.
Deputy Ruttledge spoke about the Court of Criminal Appeal not being able to deal with questions of fact. He should not have made a statement of that nature because he knows that again and again verdicts have been set aside by the Court of Appeal because the facts did not justify them.
I beg to move: "That the question be now put."
Will you be able to put the question if the Minister speaks any longer?
If the Minister is not going now to conclude his speech I will accept the motion that the question be now put.
Very good.
Amendment 28 is before the House and Deputy MacEntee claims that the question be now put. I am accepting that motion. The question is: "That the question be now put."
The question—"That the question be now put"—was put and declared carried.
A division was demanded, but there being no Deputies willing to act as tellers in favour of the question, the question was declared negatived.
The time having elapsed under the provisions of the Order made yesterday, the further questions will now have to be put, in accordance with the terms of that Order.
The Committee divided: Tá, 73; Níl, 55.
Tá
- Aird, William P.
- Alton, Ernest Henry.
- Bennett, George Cecil.
- Blythe, Ernest.
- Bourke, Séamus A.
- Brennan, Michael.
- Brodrick, Seán.
- Byrne, John Joseph.
- Carey, Edmund.
- Cole, John James.
- Collins-O'Driscoll, Mrs. Margt.
- Conlon, Martin.
- Connolly, Michael P.
- Cosgrave, William T.
- Craig, Sir James.
- Crowley, James.
- Daly, John.
- Davis, Michael.
- De Loughrey, Peter.
- Doherty, Eugene.
- Dolan, James N.
- Doyle, Peadar Seán.
- Duggan, Edmund John.
- Dwyer, James.
- Egan, Barry M.
- Esmonde, Osmond Thos. Grattan.
- Fitzgerald, Desmond.
- Fitzgerald-Kenney, James.
- Good, John.
- Gorey, Denis J.
- Haslett, Alexander.
- O'Sullivan, Gearoid.
- O'Sullivan, John Marcus.
- Rice, Vincent.
- Shaw, Patrick W.
- Sheehy, Timothy (West Cork).
- Thrift, William Edward.
- Hassett, John J.
- Heffernan, Michael R.
- Hennessy, Michael Joseph.
- Hennessy, Thomas.
- Henry, Mark.
- Hogan, Patrick (Galway).
- Holohan, Richard.
- Jordan, Michael.
- Kelly, Patrick Michael.
- Keogh, Myles.
- Law, Hugh Alexander.
- Leonard, Patrick.
- Lynch, Finian.
- Mathews, Arthur Patrick.
- McDonogh, Martin.
- McFadden, Michael Og.
- McGilligan, Patrick.
- Mongan, Joseph W.
- Mulcahy, Richard.
- Murphy, James E.
- Murphy, Joseph Xavier.
- Myles, James Sproule.
- Nally, Martin Michael.
- Nolan, John Thomas.
- O'Connell, Richard.
- O'Connor, Bartholomew.
- O'Donovan. Timothy Joseph.
- O'Hanlon, John F.
- O'Higgins, Thomas.
- O'Mahony, Dermot Gun.
- O'Reilly, John J.
- Tierney, Michael.
- Vaughan, Daniel.
- White, John.
- White, Vincent Joseph.
- Wolfe, George.
Níl
- Aiken, Frank.
- Anthony, Richard.
- Blaney, Neal.
- Boland, Patrick.
- Bourke, Daniel.
- Brady, Seán.
- Briscoe, Robert.
- Broderick, Henry.
- Buckley, Daniel.
- Carney, Frank.
- Cassidy, Archie J.
- Coburn, James.
- Colbert, James.
- Colohan, Hugh.
- Cooney, Eamon.
- Corkery, Dan.
- Corish, Richard.
- Crowley, Fred. Hugh.
- Crowley, Tadhg.
- Davin, William.
- Doyle, Edward.
- Everett, James.
- Fahy, Frank.
- Flinn, Hugo.
- Fogarty, Andrew.
- French, Seán.
- Gorry, Patrick J.
- Goulding, John.
- Hayes, Seán.
- Houlihan, Patrick.
- Jordan, Stephen.
- Kennedy, Michael Joseph.
- Kent, William R.
- Kerlin, Frank.
- Killilea, Mark.
- Kilroy, Michael.
- Lemass, Seán F.
- McEllistrim, Thomas.
- MacEntee, Seán.
- Moore, Séamus.
- Morrissey, Daniel.
- Mullins, Thomas.
- O'Connell, Thomas J.
- O'Dowd, Patrick Joseph.
- O'Kelly, Seán T.
- O'Leary, William.
- O'Reilly, Matthew.
- O'Reilly, Thomas.
- Powell, Thomas P.
- Ruttledge, Patrick J.
- Ryan, James.
- Sexton, Martin.
- Tubridy, John.
- Walsh, Richard.
- Ward, Francis C.
Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Duggan and P.S. Doyle; Níl: Deputies Flinn and Briscoe.
Motion declared carried.
Section 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Question—"That Section 6 stand part of the Bill"—put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 73; Níl, 55.
Tá
- Aird, William P.
- Alton, Ernest Henry.
- Beckett, James Walter.
- Bennett, George Cecil.
- Blythe, Ernest.
- Bourke, Séamus A.
- Brennan, Michael.
- Brodrick, Seán.
- Byrne, John Joseph.
- Carey, Edmund.
- Cole, John James.
- Collins-O'Driscoll, Mrs. Margt.
- Conlon, Martin.
- Connolly, Michael P.
- Cosgrave, William T.
- Craig, Sir James.
- Crowley, James.
- Daly, John.
- Davis, Michael.
- De Loughrey, Peter.
- Doherty, Eugene.
- Dolan, James N.
- Doyle, Peadar Seán.
- McFadden, Michael Og.
- McGilligan, Patrick.
- Mongan, Joseph W.
- Mulcahy, Richard.
- Murphy, James E.
- Murphy, Joseph Xavier.
- Myles, James Sproule.
- Nally, Martin Michael.
- Nolan, John Thomas.
- O'Connell, Richard.
- O'Connor, Bartholomew.
- O'Donovan, Timothy Joseph.
- O'Hanlon, John F.
- O'Higgins, Thomas.
- Duggan, Edmund John.
- Dwyer, James.
- Egan, Barry M.
- Esmonde, Osmond Thos. Grattan.
- Fitzgerald, Desmond.
- Fitzgerald-Kenney, James.
- Good, John.
- Gorey, Denis J.
- Haslett, Alexander.
- Hassett, John J.
- Heffernan, Michael R.
- Hennessy, Michael Joseph.
- Hennessy, Thomas.
- Henry, Mark.
- Hogan, Patrick (Galway).
- Holohan, Richard.
- Jordan, Michael.
- Kelly, Patrick Michael.
- Keogh, Myles.
- Leonard, Patrick.
- Lynch, Finian.
- Mathews, Arthur Patrick.
- McDonogh, Martin.
- O'Mahony, Dermot Gun.
- O'Reilly, John J.
- O'Sullivan, Gearoid.
- O'Sullivan, John Marcus.
- Rice, Vincent.
- Shaw, Patrick W.
- Sheehy, Timothy (West Cork).
- Thrift, William Edward.
- Tierney, Michael.
- Vaughan, Daniel.
- White, John.
- White, Vincent Joseph.
- Wolfe, George.
Níl
- Aiken, Frank.
- Anthony, Richard.
- Blaney, Neal.
- Boland, Patrick.
- Bourke, Daniel.
- Brady, Seán.
- Briscoe, Robert.
- Broderick, Henry.
- Buckley, Daniel.
- Carney, Frank.
- Cassidy, Archie J.
- Coburn, James.
- Colbert, James.
- Colohan, Hugh.
- Cooney, Eamon.
- Corkery, Dan.
- Corish, Richard.
- Crowley, Fred. Hugh.
- Crowley, Tadhg.
- Davin, William.
- Doyle, Edward.
- Everett, James.
- Fahy, Frank.
- Flinn, Hugo.
- Fogarty, Andrew.
- French, Seán.
- Gorry, Patrick J.
- Goulding, John.
- Hayes, Seán.
- Houlihan, Patrick.
- Jordan, Stephen.
- Kennedy, Michael Joseph.
- Kent, William R.
- Kerlin, Frank.
- Killilea, Mark.
- Kilroy, Michael.
- Lemass, Seán F.
- McEllistrim, Thomas.
- MacEntee, Seán.
- Moore, Séamus.
- Morrissey, Daniel.
- Mullins, Thomas.
- O'Connell, Thomas J.
- O'Dowd, Patrick Joseph.
- O'Kelly, Seán T.
- O'Leary, William.
- O'Reilly, Matthew.
- O'Reilly, Thomas.
- Powell, Thomas P.
- Ruttledge, Patrick J.
- Ryan, James.
- Sexton, Martin.
- Tubridy, John.
- Walsh, Richard.
- Ward, Francis C.
Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Duggan and P.S. Doyle; Níl: Deputies Flinn and Briscoe.
Motion declared carried.
SECTION 7.
(1) Whenever, at the trial of an accused person in the Central Criminal Court or in the Circuit Court and after such accused person has pleaded "not guilty" or a plea of "not guilty" has been entered for him and before any further proceedings are had, an officer of the Gárda Síochána not below the rank of superintendent states on oath to the judge presiding at such trial that in the opinion of such officer it is necessary for the protection of the witnesses and jurors concerned in such trial that the public should be excluded from the court during such trial, the judge shall order the court to be cleared and shall not proceed with such trial until the court has been cleared in accordance with this section.
(2) When a court has been cleared under this section at the trial of an accused person the court shall be kept so cleared during such trial until the verdict of the jury has been recorded or the jury have failed to agree and have been discharged.
(3) For the purposes of this section references to the clearing of the court shall be construed as meaning the exclusion from the court of all persons whatsoever except the judge presiding at the trial then in progress, the officers of the court, the jurors sworn for such trial, the accused person and any member of the Gárda Síochána or prison warder in charge of him, the counsel and solicitors engaged in such trial, members of the Gárda Síochána on duty in the court, other officers of the State present in their official capacity, the witness (if any) who is for the time being giving evidence and, subject to the provisions of the three next following sub-sections of this section, representatives of the Press.
(4) In this section the expression "representative of the Press" means a person duly accredited by the editor of a bona fide newspaper published not less often than once a week or by the manager of a bona fide news agency or press association as a representative of such newspaper or a reporter of legal proceedings for such newspaper, news agency, or press association.
(5) Whenever immediately after the clearing of a court under this section an officer of the Gárda Síochána not below the rank of superintendent states on oath to the Judge presiding in such Court that one or more then recent issue or issues of a specified newspaper has or have contained articles or other matter calculated in the opinion of such officer to intimidate jurors or witnesses either generally or in the particular trial then in progress or to prevent or discourage such jurors from performing their duty according to their oath without fear or favour or to prevent or discourage such witnesses from giving their evidence freely, fully, and truthfully, the judge shall forthwith order that all persons claiming to be representatives of or reporters for such newspapers be excluded from the court so long as such court continues to be cleared under this section, and thereupon while such court continues to be so cleared no person shall be admitted to or be present in such court on the ground that he is a representative of or a reporter for such newspaper.
(6) Whenever at any time while a court is cleared under this section an officer of the Gárda Síochána not below the rank of superintendent states on oath to the judge presiding in such court that a particular person then claiming the right to be admitted to or to remain in such court as a representative of the Press is known to be or is suspected of being concerned or associated in acts of intimidation of jurors or witnesses or acts of a treasonable or seditious character or otherwise hostile to law, peace, and good order or is known to associate with persons concerned or suspected of being concerned in any such acts, the judge shall forthwith order such person to be excluded from such court while it remains so cleared and thereupon such person shall be excluded from such court accordingly.
(7) Nothing in this section shall be construed to take away or derogate from any power or duty vested in or imposed on a judge by statute or otherwise to clear his court or to exclude any persons or person therefrom, and the powers and duties conferred or imposed by this section shall be in addition to and not in substitution for such first-mentioned powers and duties.
Amendment 62—In sub-section (3), page 5, line 23, after the word "evidence" to insert the words "barristers bona fide practising as such in Saorstát Eireann" (Aire Dlí agus Cirt)—put and declared carried.
Amendment 64a—in sub-section (4), page 5, line 27, after the word "person" to insert the words "who is regularly engaged or employed in journalism and is" (Aire Dlí agus Cirt)—put and agreed to.
Amendment 67a—In sub-section (5), page 5, lines 34-37, to delete the words "states on oath to the judge presiding in such court that one or more then recent issue or issues of a specified newspaper has or have contained articles or other matter calculated in the opinion of such officer" and substitute the words "produces to the judge presiding in such court one or more then recent issue or issues of a particular newspaper or a document or documents appearing and purporting to be such issue or issues and the judge is of opinion that any articles or other matter contained in such issue or document or any of such issues or documents is calculated" (Aire Dlí agus Cirt)—put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 83; Níl, 44.
Tá
- Aird, William P.
- Alton, Ernest Henry.
- Anthony, Richard.
- Beckett, James Walter.
- Bennett, George Cecil.
- Blythe, Ernest.
- Bourke, Séamus A.
- Brennan, Michael.
- Broderick, Henry.
- Brodrick, Seán.
- Byrne, John Joseph.
- Carey, Edmund.
- Cassidy, Archie J.
- Cole, John James.
- Collins-O'Driscoll, Mrs. Margt.
- Colohan, Hugh.
- Conlon, Martin.
- Connolly, Michael P.
- Corish, Richard.
- Cosgrave, William T.
- Craig, Sir James.
- Crowley, James.
- Daly, John.
- Davin, William.
- Davis, Michael.
- De Loughrey, Peter.
- Doherty, Eugene.
- Dolan, James N.
- Doyle, Edward.
- Doyle, Peadar Seán.
- Duggan, Edmund John.
- Dwyer, James.
- Egan, Barry M.
- Esmonde, Osmond Thos. Grattan.
- Everett, James.
- Fitzgerald, Desmond.
- Fitzgerald-Kenney, James.
- Good, John.
- Gorey, Denis J.
- Haslett, Alexander.
- Hassett, John J.
- Heffernan, Michael R.
- Hennessy, Michael Joseph.
- Hennessy, Thomas.
- Henry, Mark.
- Hogan, Patrick (Galway).
- Holohan, Richard.
- Jordan, Michael.
- Kelly, Patrick Michael.
- Keogh, Myles.
- Leonard, Patrick.
- Lynch, Finian.
- Mathews, Arthur Patrick.
- McDonogh, Martin.
- McFadden, Michael Og.
- McGilligan, Patrick.
- Mongan, Joseph W.
- Morrissey, Daniel.
- Mulcahy, Richard.
- Murphy, James E.
- Murphy, Joseph Xavier.
- Myles, James Sproule.
- Nally, Martin Michael.
- Nolan, John Thomas.
- O'Connell, Richard.
- O'Connell, Thomas J.
- O'Connor, Bartholomew.
- O'Donovan, Timothy Joseph.
- O'Hanlon, John F.
- O'Higgins, Thos.
- O'Mahony, Dermot Gun.
- O'Reilly, John J.
- O'Sullivan, Gearoid.
- O'Sullivan, John Marcus.
- Rice, Vincent.
- Shaw, Patrick W.
- Sheehy, Timothy (West Cork)
- Thrift, William Edward.
- Tierney, Michael.
- Vaughan, Daniel.
- White, John.
- White, Vincent Joseph.
- Wolfe, George.
Níl
- Aiken, Frank.
- Blaney, Neal.
- Boland, Patrick.
- Bourke, Daniel.
- Brady, Seán.
- Briscoe, Robert.
- Buckley, Daniel.
- Carney, Frank.
- Colbert, James.
- Cooney, Eamon.
- Corkery, Dan.
- Crowley, Fred. Hugh.
- Crowley, Tadhg.
- Kilroy, Michael.
- Lemass, Seán F.
- McEllistrim, Thomas.
- MacEntee, Seán.
- Moore, Séamus.
- Mullins, Thomas.
- O'Dowd, Patrick Joseph.
- O'Kelly, Seán T.
- O'Leary, William.
- Fahy, Frank.
- Flinn, Hugo.
- Fogarty, Andrew.
- French, Seán.
- Gorry, Patrick J.
- Goulding, John.
- Hayes, Seán.
- Houlihan, Patrick.
- Jordan, Stephen.
- Kennedy, Michael Joseph.
- Kent, William R.
- Kerlin, Frank.
- Killilea, Mark.
- O'Reilly, Matthew.
- O'Reilly, Thomas.
- Powell, Thomas P.
- Ruttledge, Patrick J.
- Ryan, James.
- Sexton, Martin.
- Tubridy, John.
- Walsh, Richard.
- Ward, Francis C.
Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Duggan and P.S. Doyle; Níl: Deputies Flinn and Briscoe.
Amendment declared carried.
Amendment 74a—In sub-section (6), page 5, lines 56 and 57, to delete the words "or otherwise hostile to law, peace and good order" (Aire Dlí agus Cirt)—put and agreed to.
Amendment 74b—In sub-section (6), page 5, line 57, after the word "known" to insert the word "generally" (Aire Dlí agus Cirt)— put.
An Leas-Cheann Comhairle took the Chair.
The Committee divided: Tá, 80; Níl, 44.
Tá
- Aird, William P.
- Alton, Ernest Henry.
- Anthony, Richard.
- Beckett, James Walter.
- Bennett, George Cecil.
- Blythe, Ernest.
- Bourke, Séamus A.
- Brennan, Michael.
- Broderick, Henry.
- Brodrick, Seán.
- Byrne, John Joseph.
- Carey, Edmund.
- Cassidy, Archie J.
- Cole, John James.
- Collins-O'Driscoll, Mrs. Margt.
- Colohan, Hugh.
- Conlan, Martin.
- Connolly, Michael P.
- Corish, Richard.
- Cosgrave, William T.
- Craig, Sir James.
- Crowley, James.
- Daly, John.
- Davin, William.
- Davis, Michael.
- Doherty, Eugene.
- Dolan, James N.
- Doyle, Edward.
- Doyle, Peadar Seán.
- Duggan, Edmund John.
- Dwyer, James.
- Egan, Barry M.
- Esmonde, Osmond Thos. Grattan.
- Everett, James.
- Fitzgerald, Desmond.
- Fitzgerald-Kenney, James.
- Good, John.
- Gorey, Denis J.
- Haslett, Alexander.
- Hassett, John J.
- Heffernan, Michael R.
- Hennessy, Michael Joseph.
- Hennessy, Thomas.
- Henry, Mark.
- Holohan, Richard.
- Jordan, Michael.
- Kelly, Patrick Michael.
- Keogh, Myles.
- Law, Hugh Alexander.
- Leonard, Patrick.
- Lynch, Finian.
- Mathews, Arthur Patrick.
- McDonogh, Martin.
- McFadden, Michael Og.
- McGilligan, Patrick.
- Mongan, Joseph W.
- Mulcahy, Richard.
- Murphy, James E.
- Myles, James Sproule.
- Nally, Martin Michael.
- Nolan, John Thomas.
- O'Connell, Richard.
- O'Connell, Thomas J.
- O'Connor, Bartholomew.
- O'Donovan, Timothy Joseph.
- O'Hanlon, John F.
- O'Higgins, Thomas.
- O'Mahony, Dermot Gun.
- O'Reilly, John J.
- O'Sullivan, Gearoid.
- O'Sullivan, John Marcus.
- Rice, Vincent.
- Shaw, Patrick W.
- Sheehy, Timothy (West Cork).
- Thrift, William Edward.
- Tierney, Michael.
- Vaughan, Daniel.
- White, John.
- White, Vincent Joseph.
- Wolfe, George.
Níl
- Aiken, Frank.
- Blaney, Neal.
- Boland, Patrick.
- Bourke, Daniel.
- Brady, Seán.
- Briscoe, Robert.
- Buckley, Daniel.
- Carney, Frank.
- Colbert, James.
- Cooney, Eamon.
- Corkery, Dan.
- Crowley, Fred. Hugh.
- Crowley, Tadhg.
- Fahy, Frank.
- Flinn, Hugo.
- Fogarty, Andrew.
- French, Seán.
- Gorry, Patrick J.
- Goulding, John.
- Hayes, Seán.
- Houlihan, Patrick.
- Jordan, Stephen.
- Kennedy, Michael Joseph.
- Kent, William R.
- Kerlin, Frank.
- Killilea, Mark.
- Kilroy, Michael.
- Lemass, Seán F.
- McEllistrim, Thomas.
- MacEntee, Seán.
- Moore, Séamus.
- Mullins, Thomas.
- O'Dowd, Patrick Joseph.
- O'Kelly, Seán T.
- O'Leary, William.
- O'Reilly, Matthew.
- O'Reilly, Thomas.
- Powell, Thomas P.
- Ruttledge, Patrick J.
- Ryan, James.
- Sexton, Martin.
- Tubridy, John.
- Walsh, Richard.
- Ward, Francis C.
Tellers:—Tá, Deputies Duggan and Doyle; Níl: Deputies Briscoe and Flinn.
Amendment declared carried.
Question—"That Section 7, as amended, stand part of the Bill"— put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 72; Níl, 51.
Tá
- Aird, William P.
- Alton, Ernest Henry.
- Beckett, James Walter.
- Bennett, George Cecil.
- Blythe, Ernest.
- Bourke, Séamus A.
- Brennan, Michael.
- Brodrick, Seán.
- Byrne, John Joseph.
- Carey, Edmund.
- Cole, John James.
- Collins-O'Driscoll, Mrs. Margt.
- Conlon, Martin.
- Connolly, Michael P.
- Cosgrave, William T.
- Craig, Sir James.
- Crowley, James.
- Daly, John.
- Davis, Michael.
- De Loughrey, Peter.
- Doherty, Eugene.
- Doyle, Peadar Seán.
- Duggan, Edmund John.
- Dwyer, James.
- Egan, Barry M.
- Esmonde, Osmond Thos. Grattan.
- Everett, James.
- Fitzgerald, Desmond.
- Fitzgerald-Kenney, James.
- Good, John.
- Gorey, Denis J.
- Haslett, Alexander.
- Hassett, John J.
- Heffernan, Michael R.
- Hennessy, Michael Joseph.
- Hennessy, Thomas.
- Henry, Mark.
- Holohan, Richard.
- Jordan, Michael.
- Kelly, Patrick Michael.
- Keogh, Myles.
- Law, Hugh Alexander.
- Leonard, Patrick.
- Lynch, Finian.
- Mathews, Arthur Patrick.
- McDonogh, Martin.
- McFadden, Michael Og.
- McGilligan, Patrick.
- Mongan, Joseph W.
- Mulcahy, Richard.
- Murphy, James E.
- Myles, James Sproule.
- Nally, Martin Michael.
- Nolan, John Thomas.
- O'Connell, Richard.
- O'Connor, Bartholomew.
- O'Donovan, Timothy Joseph.
- O'Hanlon, John F.
- O'Higgins, Thos.
- O'Mahony, Dermot Gun.
- O'Reilly, John J.
- O'Sullivan, Gearoid.
- O'Sullivan, John Marcus.
- Rice, Vincent.
- Shaw, Patrick W.
- Sheehy, Timothy (West Cork).
- Thrift, William Edward.
- Tierney, Michael.
- Vaughan, Daniel.
- White, John.
- White, Vincent Joseph.
- Wolfe, George.
Níl
- Aiken, Frank.
- Anthony, Richard.
- Blaney, Neal.
- Boland, Patrick.
- Bourke, Daniel.
- Brady, Seán.
- Briscoe, Robert.
- Broderick, Henry.
- Buckley, Daniel.
- Carney, Frank.
- Cassidy, Archie J.
- Colbert, James.
- Cooney, Eamonn.
- Corkery, Dan.
- Corish, Richard.
- Crowley, Fred. Hugh.
- Crowley, Tadhg.
- Davin, William.
- Doyle, Edward.
- Fahy, Frank.
- Flinn, Hugo.
- Fogarty, Andrew.
- French, Seán.
- Gorry, Patrick J.
- Goulding, John.
- Hayes, Seán.
- Houlihan, Patrick
- Jordan, Stephen.
- Kennedy, William Joseph.
- Kent, William R.
- Kerlin, Frank.
- Killilea, Mark.
- Kilroy, Michael.
- Lemass, Seán F.
- McEllistrim, Thomas.
- MacEntee, Seán.
- Moore, Séamus.
- Mullins, Thomas.
- O'Connell, Thomas J.
- O'Dowd, Patrick Joseph.
- O'Kelly, Seán T.
- O'Leary, William.
- O'Reilly, Matthew.
- O'Reilly, Thomas.
- Powell, Thomas P.
- Ruttledge, Patrick J.
- Ryan, James.
- Sexton, Martin.
- Tubridy, John.
- Walsh, Richard.
- Ward, Francis C.
Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Duggan and Doyle; Níl: Deputies Briscoe and Flinn.
Question declared carried.
Question—"That Section 8 stand part of the Bill"—put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 73; Níl, 51.
Tá
- Aird, William P.
- Alton, Ernest Henry.
- Beckett, James Walter.
- Bennett, George Cecil.
- Blythe, Ernest.
- Bourke, Séamus A.
- Brennan, Michael.
- Brodrick, Seán.
- Byrne, John Joseph.
- Carey, Edmund.
- Cole, John James.
- Collins-O'Driscoll, Mrs. Margt.
- Conlan, Martin.
- Connolly, Michael P.
- Cosgrave, William T.
- Craig, Sir James.
- Crowley, James.
- Daly, John.
- Davis, Michael.
- De Loughrey, Peter.
- Doherty, Eugene.
- Dolan, James N.
- Doyle, Peadar Seán.
- Duggan, Edmund John.
- Dwyer, James.
- Egan, Barry M.
- Esmonde, Osmond Thos. Grattan.
- Fitzgerald, Desmond.
- Fitzgerald-Kenney, James.
- Good, John.
- Gorey, Denis J.
- Haslett, Alexander.
- Hassett, John J.
- Heffernan, Michael R.
- Hennessy, Michael Joseph.
- Hennessy, Thomas.
- Henry, Mark.
- Holohan, Richard.
- Jordan, Michael.
- Kelly, Patrick Michael.
- Keogh, Myles.
- Law, Hugh Alexander.
- Leonard, Patrick.
- Lynch, Finian.
- Mathews, Arthur Patrick.
- McDonogh, Martin.
- McFadden, Michael Og.
- McGilligan, Patrick.
- Mongan, Joseph W.
- Mulcahy, Richard.
- Murphy, James E.
- Murphy, Joseph Xavier.
- Myles, James Sproule.
- Nally, Martin Michael.
- Nolan, John Thomas.
- O'Connell, Richard.
- O'Connor, Bartholomew.
- O'Donovan, Timothy Joseph.
- O'Hanlon, John F.
- O'Higgins, Thomas.
- O'Mahony, Dermot Gun.
- O'Reilly, John J.
- O'Sullivan, Gearoid.
- O'Sullivan, John Marcus.
- Rice, Vincent.
- Shaw, Patrick W.
- Sheehy, Timothy (West Cork).
- Thrift, William Edward.
- Tierney, Michael.
- Vaughan, Daniel.
- White, John.
- White, Vincent Joseph.
- Wolfe, George.
Níl
- Aiken, Frank.
- Anthony, Richard.
- Blaney, Neal.
- Boland, Patrick.
- Bourke, Daniel.
- Brady, Seán.
- Briscoe, Robert.
- Broderick, Henry.
- Buckley, Daniel.
- Carney, Frank.
- Cassidy, Archie J.
- Colbert, James.
- Cooney, Eamon.
- Corkery, Dan.
- Corish, Richard.
- Crowley, Fred. Hugh.
- Crowley, Tadhg.
- Davin, William.
- Doyle, Edward.
- Everett, James.
- Fahy, Frank.
- Flinn, Hugo.
- Fogarty, Andrew.
- French, Seán.
- Gorry, Patrick J.
- Goulding, John.
- Hayes, Seán.
- Houlihan, Patrick.
- Jordan, Stephen.
- Kennedy, Michael Joseph.
- Kent, William R.
- Kerlin, Frank.
- Killilea, Mark.
- Kilroy, Michael.
- Lemass, Seán F.
- McEllistrim, Thomas.
- MacEntee, Seán.
- Moore, Séamus.
- Mullins, Thomas.
- O'Connell, Thomas J.
- O'Dowd, Patrick Joseph.
- O'Kelly, Seán T.
- O'Reilly, Matthew.
- O'Reilly, Thomas.
- Powell, Thomas P.
- Ruttledge, Patrick J.
- Ryan, James.
- Sexton, Martin.
- Tubridy, John.
- Walsh, Richard.
- Ward, Francis C.
Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Duggan and P.S. Doyle; Níl: Deputies Flinn and Briscoe.
Motion declared carried.
Question—"That Section 9 stand part of the Bill"—put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 71; Níl, 51.
Tá
- Aird, William P.
- Alton, Ernest Henry.
- Beckett, James Walter.
- Bennett, George Cecil.
- Blythe, Ernest.
- Bourke, Séamus A.
- Brennan, Michael.
- Brodrick, Seán.
- Byrne, John Joseph.
- Carey, Edmund.
- Cole, John James.
- Collins-O'Driscoll, Mrs. Margt.
- Conlon, Martin.
- Connolly, Michael P.
- Cosgrave, William T.
- Craig, Sir James.
- Crowley, James.
- Daly, John.
- Davis, Michael.
- Doherty, Eugene.
- Dolan, James N.
- Doyle, Peadar Seán.
- Duggan, Edmund John.
- Dwyer, James.
- Egan, Barry M.
- Esmonde, Osmond Thos. Grattan.
- Fitzgerald-Kenney, James.
- Good, John.
- Gorey, Denis J.
- Haslett, Alexander.
- Hassett, John J.
- Heffernan, Michael R.
- Hennessy, Michael Joseph.
- Hennessy, Thomas.
- Henry, Mark.
- Holohan, Richard.
- Jordan, Michael.
- Kelly, Patrick Michael.
- Keogh, Myles.
- Law, Hugh Alexander
- Leonard, Patrick.
- Lynch, Finian.
- Mathews, Arthur Patrick.
- McDonogh, Martin.
- McFadden, Michael Og.
- McGilligan, Patrick.
- Mongan, Joseph W.
- Mulcahy, Richard.
- Murphy, James E.
- Murphy, Joseph Xavier.
- Myles, James Sproule.
- Nally, Martin Michael.
- Nolan, John Thomas.
- O'Connell, Richard.
- O'Connor, Bartholomew.
- O'Donovan, Timothy, Joseph.
- O'Hanlon, John F.
- O'Higgins, Thomas.
- O'Mahony, Dermot Gun.
- O'Reilly, John J.
- O'Sullivan, Gearoid.
- O'Sullivan, John Marcus.
- Rice, Vincent.
- Shaw, Patrick W.
- Sheehy, Timothy (West Cork).
- Thrift, William Edward.
- Tierney, Michael.
- Vaughan, Daniel.
- White, John.
- White, Vincent Joseph.
- Wolfe, George.
Níl
- Aiken, Frank.
- Anthony, Richard
- Blaney, Neal.
- Boland, Patrick.
- Bourke, Daniel.
- Brady, Seán.
- Briscoe, Robert.
- Broderick, Henry.
- Buckley, Daniel.
- Carney, Frank.
- Cassidy, Archie J.
- Colbert, James.
- Cooney, Eamon.
- Corkery, Dan.
- Corish, Richard.
- Crowley, Fred. Hugh.
- Crowley, Tadhg.
- Davin, William.
- Doyle, Edward.
- Everett, James.
- Fahy, Frank.
- Flinn, Hugo.
- Fogarty, Andrew.
- French, Seán.
- Gorry, Patrick J.
- Goulding, John.
- Hayes, Seán.
- Houlihan, Patrick.
- Jordan, Stephen.
- Kennedy, Michael Joseph.
- Kent, William R.
- Kerlin, Frank.
- Killilea, Mark.
- Kilroy, Michael.
- Lemass, Seán F.
- McEllistrim, Thomas.
- MacEntee, Seán.
- Moore, Séamus.
- Mullins, Thomas.
- O'Connell, Thomas J.
- O'Dowd, Patrick Joseph.
- O'Kelly, Seán T.
- O'Reilly, Matthew.
- O'Reilly, Thomas.
- Powell, Thomas P.
- Ruttledge, Patrick J.
- Ryan, James.
- Sexton, Martin.
- Tubridy, John.
- Walsh, Richard.
- Ward, Francis C.
Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Duggan and P.S. Doyle; Níl: Deputies Flinn and Briscoe.
Motion declared carried.
Question—"That Section 10 stand part of the Bill"—put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 72; Níl, 51.
Tá
- Aird, William P.
- Alton, Ernest Henry.
- Beckett, James Walter.
- Bennett, George Cecil.
- Blythe, Ernest.
- Bourke, Séamus A.
- Brennan, Michael.
- Brodrick Seán.
- Byrne, John Joseph.
- Carey, Edmund.
- Cole, John James.
- Collins-O'Driscoll, Mrs. Margt.
- Conlon, Martin.
- Connolly, Michael P.
- Cosgrave, William T.
- Craig, Sir James.
- Crowley, James.
- Daly, John.
- Davis, Michael.
- De Loughrey, Peter.
- Doherty, Eugene.
- Dolan, James N.
- Doyle, Peadar Seán.
- Duggan, Edmund John.
- Dwyer, James.
- Egan, Barry M.
- Esmonde, Osmond Thos. Grattan.
- Fitzgerald, Desmond.
- Fitzgerald-Kenney, James.
- Good, John.
- Gorey, Denis J.
- Haslett, Alexander.
- Hassett, John J.
- Heffernan, Michael R.
- Hennessy, Michael Joseph.
- Hennessy, Thomas.
- Henry, Mark.
- Holohan, Richard.
- Jordan, Michael.
- Kelly, Patrick Michael.
- Keogh, Myles.
- Law, Hugh Alexander.
- Leonard, Patrick.
- Lynch, Finian.
- Mathews, Arthur Patrick.
- McDonogh, Martin.
- McFadden, Michael Og.
- McGilligan, Patrick.
- Mongan, Joseph W.
- Mulcahy, Richard.
- Murphy, James E.
- Murphy, Joseph Xavier.
- Myles, James Sproule.
- Nally, Martin Michael.
- Nolan, John Thomas.
- O'Connell, Richard.
- O'Donovan, Timothy Joseph.
- O'Hanlon, John F.
- O'Higgins, Thos.
- O'Mahony, Dermot Gun.
- O'Reilly, John J.
- O'Sullivan, Gearoid.
- O'Sullivan, John Marcus.
- Rice, Vincent.
- Shaw, Patrick W.
- Sheehy, Timothy (West Cork).
- Thrift, William Edward.
- Tierney, Michael.
- Vaughan, Daniel.
- White, John.
- White, Vincent Joseph.
- Wolfe, George.
Níl
- Aiken, Frank.
- Anthony, Richard.
- Blaney, Neal.
- Boland, Patrick.
- Bourke, Daniel.
- Brady, Seán.
- Briscoe, Robert.
- Broderick, Henry.
- Buckley, Daniel.
- Carney, Frank.
- Cassidy, Archie J.
- Colbert, James.
- Cooney, Eamon.
- Corkery, Dan.
- Corish, Richard.
- Crowley, Fred. Hugh.
- Crowley, Tadhg.
- Davin, William.
- Doyle, Edward.
- Everett, James.
- Fahy, Frank.
- Flinn, Hugo.
- Fogarty, Andrew.
- French, Seán.
- Gorry, Patrick J.
- Goulding, John.
- Hayes, Seán.
- Houlihan, Patrick.
- Jordan, Stephen.
- Kennedy, Michael Joseph.
- Kent, William R.
- Kerlin, Frank.
- Killilea, Mark.
- Kilroy, Michael.
- Lemass, Seán F.
- McEllistrim, Thomas.
- MacEntee, Seán.
- Moore, Séamus.
- Mullins, Thomas.
- O'Connell, Thomas J.
- O'Dowd, Patrick Joseph.
- O'Kelly, Seán T.
- O'Reilly, Matthew.
- O'Reilly, Thomas.
- Powell, Thomas P.
- Ruttledge, Patrick J.
- Ryan, James.
- Sexton, Martin.
- Tubridy, John.
- Walsh, Richard.
- Ward, Francis C.
Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Duggan and P.S. Doyle; Níl: Deputies Flinn and Briscoe.
Motion declared carried.
Question—"That Section 11 stand part of the Bill"—put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 71; Níl, 52.
Tá
- Aird, William P.
- Alton, Ernest Henry.
- Beckett, James Walter.
- Bennett, George Cecil.
- Blythe, Ernest.
- Bourke, Séamus A.
- Brennan, Michael.
- Brodrick, Seán.
- Byrne, John Joseph.
- Carey, Edmund.
- Cole, John James.
- Collins-O'Driscoll, Mrs. Margt.
- Conlon, Martin.
- Connolly, Michael P.
- Cosgrave, William T.
- Craig, Sir James.
- Crowley, James.
- Daly, John.
- Davis, Michael.
- Doherty, Eugene.
- Dolan, James N.
- Doyle, Peadar Seán.
- Duggan, Edmund John.
- Dwyer, James.
- Egan, Barry M.
- Esmonde, Osmond Thos. Grattan.
- Fitzgerald, Desmond.
- Fitzgerald-Kenney, James.
- Gorey, Denis J.
- Haslett, Alexander.
- Hassett, John J.
- Heffernan, Michael R.
- Hennessy, Michael Joseph.
- Tierney, Michael.
- Vaughan, Daniel.
- White, John.
- Hennessy, Thomas.
- Henry, Mark.
- Holohan, Richard.
- Jordan, Michael.
- Kelly, Patrick Michael.
- Keogh, Myles.
- Law, Hugh Alexander.
- Leonard, Patrick.
- Lynch, Finian.
- Mathews, Arthur Patrick.
- McDonogh, Martin.
- McFadden, Michael Og.
- McGilligan, Patrick.
- Mongan, Joseph W.
- Mulcahy, Richard.
- Murphy, James E.
- Murphy, Joseph Xavier.
- Myles, James Sproule.
- Nally, Martin Michael.
- Nolan, John Thomas.
- O'Connell, Richard.
- O'Connor, Bartholomew.
- O'Donovan, Timothy Joseph.
- O'Hanlon, John F.
- O'Higgins, Thos.
- O'Mahony, Dermot Gun.
- O'Reilly, John J.
- O'Sullivan, Gearoid.
- O'Sullivan, John Marcus.
- Rice, Vincent.
- Shaw, Patrick W.
- Sheehy, Timothy (West Cork).
- Thrift, William Edward.
- White, Vincent Joseph.
- Wolfe, George.
Níl
- Aiken, Frank.
- Anthony, Richard.
- Blaney, Neal.
- Boland, Patrick.
- Bourke, Daniel.
- Brady, Seán.
- Briscoe, Robert.
- Broderick, Henry.
- Buckley, Daniel.
- Carney, Frank.
- Cassidy, Archie J.
- Colbert, James.
- Cooney, Eamon.
- Corkery, Dan.
- Corish, Richard.
- Crowley, Fred. Hugh.
- Crowley, Tadhg.
- Davin, William.
- Doyle, Edward.
- Everett, James.
- Fahy, Frank.
- Flinn, Hugo.
- Fogarty, Andrew.
- French, Seán.
- Gorry, Patrick J.
- Goulding, John.
- Hayes, Seán.
- Houlihan, Patrick.
- Jordan, Stephen.
- Kennedy, Michael Joseph.
- Kent, William R.
- Kerlin, Frank.
- Killilea, Mark.
- Kilroy, Michael.
- Lemass, Seán F.
- McEllistrim, Thomas.
- MacEntee, Seán.
- Moore, Séamus.
- Mullins, Thomas.
- O'Connell, Thomas J.
- O'Dowd, Patrick Joseph.
- O'Kelly, Seán T.
- O'Leary, William.
- O'Reilly, Matthew.
- O'Reilly, Thomas.
- Powell, Thomas P.
- Ruttledge, Patrick J.
- Ryan, James.
- Sexton, Martin.
- Tubridy, John.
- Walsh, Richard.
- Ward, Francis C.
Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Duggan and P.S. Doyle; Níl: Deputies Flinn and Briscoe.
Motion declared carried.
Question—"That Section 12 stand part of the Bill"—put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 69; Níl, 53.
Tá
- Aird, William P.
- Alton, Ernest Henry.
- Beckett, James Walter.
- Bennett, George Cecil.
- Blythe, Ernest.
- Bourke, Séamus A.
- Brennan, Michael.
- Brodrick, Seán.
- Byrne, John Joseph.
- Carey, Edmund.
- Cole, John James.
- Collins-O'Driscoll, Mrs. Margt.
- Conlon, Martin.
- Cosgrave, William T.
- Craig, Sir James.
- Crowley, James.
- Daly, John.
- Davis, Michael.
- Doherty, Eugene.
- Dolan, James N.
- Doyle, Peadar Seán.
- Duggan, Edmund John.
- Dwyer, James.
- Egan, Barry M.
- Esmonde, Osmond Thos. Grattan.
- Fitzgerald, Desmond.
- Fitzgerald-Kenney, James.
- Gorey, Denis J.
- O'Mahony, Dermot Gun.
- O'Reilly, John J.
- O'Sullivan, Gearoid.
- O'Sullivan, John Marcus.
- Rice, Vincent.
- Shaw, Patrick W.
- Sheehy, Timothy (West Cork).
- Haslett, Alexander.
- Hassett, John J.
- Heffernan, Michael R.
- Hennessy, Michael Joseph.
- Hennessy, Thomas.
- Henry, Mark.
- Holohan, Richard.
- Jordan, Michael.
- Keogh, Myles.
- Law, Hugh Alexander.
- Leonard, Patrick.
- Lynch, Finian.
- Mathews, Arthur Patrick.
- McDonogh, Martin.
- McFadden, Michael Og.
- McGilligan, Patrick.
- Mongan, Joseph W.
- Mulcahy, Richard.
- Murphy, James E.
- Murphy, Joseph Xavier.
- Myles, James Sproule.
- Nally, Martin Michael.
- Nolan, John Thomas.
- O'Connell, Richard.
- O'Connor, Bartholomew.
- O'Donovan, Timothy Joseph.
- O'Hanlon, John F.
- O'Higgins, Thos.
- Thrift, William Edward.
- Tierney, Michael.
- Vaughan, Daniel.
- White, John.
- White, Vincent Joseph.
- Wolfe, George.
Níl
- Aiken, Frank.
- Anthony, Richard.
- Blaney, Neal.
- Boland, Patrick.
- Bourke, Daniel.
- Brady, Seán.
- Briscoe, Robert.
- Broderick, Henry.
- Buckley, Daniel.
- Carney, Frank.
- Cassidy, Archie J.
- Colbert, James.
- Cooney, Eamon.
- Corkery, Dan.
- Corish, Richard.
- Crowley, Fred. Hugh.
- Crowley, Tadhg.
- Davin, William.
- Doyle, Edward.
- Everett, James.
- Fahy, Frank.
- Flinn, Hugo.
- Fogarty, Andrew.
- French, Seán.
- Gorry, Patrick J.
- Goulding, John.
- Hayes, Seán.
- Houlihan, Patrick.
- Jordan, Stephen.
- Kennedy, Michael Joseph.
- Kent, William R.
- Kerlin, Frank.
- Killilea, Mark.
- Kilroy, Michael
- Lemass, Seán F.
- McEllistrim, Thomas.
- MacEntee, Seán.
- Moore, Séamus.
- Morrissey, Daniel.
- Mullins, Thomas.
- O'Connell, Thomas J.
- O'Dowd, Patrick Joseph.
- O'Kelly, Seán T.
- O'Leary, William.
- O'Reilly, Matthew.
- O'Reilly, Thomas.
- Powell, Thomas P.
- Ruttledge, Patrick J.
- Ryan, James.
- Sexton, Martin.
- Tubridy, John.
- Walsh, Richard.
- Ward, Francis C.
Tellers: Tá: Deputies Duggan and P.S. Doyle; Níl: Deputies Flinn and Briscoe.
Question declared carried.
SECTION 13.
I move amendment 111:—
To add at the end of the section a new sub-section as follows:—
"This Act shall continue in force until the 31st day of December, 1931, and shall then expire."
Amendment declared carried.
Question proposed—"That Section 13, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
I want to ask if this motion is to be put under the Closure proper, because so far as we can read the Standing Orders, they read that a motion is made by a member rising in his place and moving that the question be now put. That question was put at 18½ minutes to 9 o'clock to-night and it was not carried. I do not think therefore that you are entitled to conclude the business of the Committee Stage of this Bill at this hour of the night, the Dáil having already determined that it is going to adjourn at 10.30 o'clock. I do not think that the putting of this section to the House is business that can be done under the Closure proper.
The Deputy's point of order is that it is not in order to continue the business beyond this hour?
Yes.
There is no connection between that point and the Closure motion which was moved this evening before nine o'clock.
I submit that it is only upon a motion such as that which was put at 18½ minutes to 9 o'clock to-night that this can be done.
The Deputy's point is that it is only under Standing Order 52 we could now continue.
I submit, on a point of order, that, as it is 10.30 p.m., the House is now automatically adjourned.
The Deputy is not so foolish as to think that is a point of order.
So long as I get away with it, I do not mind.
But you do not get away with it.
The Order of the House yesterday under which these proceedings are now taking place stipulates:—
".... the proceedings in Committee on the Bill, if not previously brought to a conclusion, shall be brought to a conclusion at the expiration of the aforesaid period of six hours by putting from the Chair forthwith and successively any questions necessary to bring the proceedings to a conclusion, providing, etc."
I think that Order in these terms requires for its fulfilment questions to be put until the proceedings on the Committee Stage shall have been concluded in accordance with the terms of the Order, and I am putting the necessary questions.
Question—"That Section 13, as amended, stand part of the Bill"— put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 68; Níl, 44.
Tá
- Aird, William P.
- Alton, Ernest Henry.
- Beckett, Ernest Walter.
- Bennett, George Cecil.
- Blythe, Ernest.
- Bourke, Séamus A.
- Brennan, Michael.
- Brodrick, Seán.
- Byrne, John Joseph.
- Carey, Edmund.
- Cole, John James.
- Collins-O'Driscoll, Mrs. Margt.
- Conlon, Martin.
- Connolly, Michael P.
- Cosgrave, William T.
- Craig, Sir James.
- Crowley, James.
- Daly, John.
- Davis, Michael.
- Doherty, Eugene.
- Dolan, James N.
- Doyle, Peadar Seán.
- Duggan, Edmund John.
- Dwyer, James.
- Egan, Barry M.
- Fitzgerald, Desmond.
- Fitzgerald-Kenney, James.
- Gorey, Denis J.
- Haslett, Alexander.
- Hassett, John J.
- Heffernan, Michael R.
- Hennessy, Michael Joseph.
- Henry, Mark.
- Holohan, Richard.
- Jordan, Michael.
- Keogh, Myles.
- Law, Hugh Alexander.
- Leonard, Patrick.
- Lynch, Finian.
- Mathews, Arthur Patrick.
- McDonogh, Martin.
- McFadden, Michael Og.
- McGilligan, Patrick.
- Mongan, Joseph W.
- Mulcahy, Richard.
- Murphy, James E.
- Murphy, Joseph Xavier.
- Myles, James Sproule.
- Nally, Martin Michael.
- Nolan, John Thomas.
- O'Connell, Richard.
- O'Connor, Bartholomew.
- O'Donovan, Timothy Joseph.
- O'Hanlon, John F.
- O'Higgins, Thos.
- O'Mahony, Dermot Gun.
- O'Reilly, John J.
- O'Sullivan, Gearoid.
- O'Sullivan, John Marcus.
- Rice, Vincent.
- Shaw, Patrick W.
- Sheehy, Timothy (West Cork).
- Thrift, William Edward.
- Tierney, Michael.
- Vaughan, Daniel.
- White, John.
- White, Vincent Joseph.
- Wolfe, George.
Níl
- Aiken, Frank.
- Blaney, Neal.
- Boland, Patrick.
- Brady, Seán.
- Briscoe, Robert.
- Buckley, Daniel.
- Cassidy, Archie J.
- Colbert, James.
- Cooney, Eamonn.
- Corkery, Dan.
- Corish, Richard.
- Crowley, Fred. Hugh.
- Crowley, Tadhg.
- Davin, William.
- Doyle, Edward.
- Everett, James.
- Fahy, Frank.
- Flinn, Hugo.
- Fogarty, Andrew.
- Gorry, Patrick J.
- Goulding, John.
- Hayes, Seán.
- Jordan, Stephen.
- Kennedy, Michael Joseph.
- Kent, William R.
- Kerlin, Frank.
- Kilroy, Michael.
- Lemass, Seán F.
- McEllistrim, Thomas.
- MacEntee, Seán.
- Moore, Séamus.
- Mullins, Thomas.
- O'Dowd, Patrick Joseph.
- O'Kelly, Seán T.
- O'Leary, William.
- O'Reilly, Matthew.
- O'Reilly, Thomas.
- Powell, Thomas P.
- Ruttledge, Patrick J.
- Ryan, James.
- Sexton, Martin.
- Tubridy, John.
- Walsh, Richard.
- Ward, Francis C.
Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Duggan and P.S. Doyle; Níl: Deputies Briscoe and Flinn.
Question declared carried.
Question—"That the Title stand part of the Bill"—put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 68; Níl, 49.
Tá
- Aird, William P.
- Alton, Ernest Henry.
- Beckett, James Walter.
- Bennett, George Cecil.
- Blythe, Ernest.
- Brennan, Michael.
- Brodrick, Seán.
- Byrne, John Joseph.
- Carey, Edmund.
- Collins-O'Driscoll, Mrs. Margt.
- Conlon, Martin.
- Connolly, Michael P.
- Cosgrave, William T.
- Craig, Sir James.
- Crowley, James.
- Daly, John.
- Davis, Michael.
- Doherty, Eugene.
- Dolan, James N.
- Doyle, Peadar Seán.
- Duggan, Edmund John.
- Dwyer, James.
- Egan, Barry M.
- Esmonde, Osmond Thos. Grattan.
- Fitzgerald, Desmond.
- Fitzgerald-Kenney, James.
- Gorey, Denis J.
- Haslett, Alexander.
- Hassett, John J.
- Heffernan, Michael R.
- Hennessy, Michael Joseph.
- Hennessy, Thomas.
- Henry, Mark.
- Holohan, Richard.
- Jordan, Michael.
- Kelly, Patrick Michael.
- Keogh, Myles.
- Law, Hugh Alexander.
- Leonard, Patrick.
- Lynch, Finian.
- Mathews, Arthur Patrick.
- McDonogh, Martin.
- McFadden, Michael Og.
- McGilligan, Patrick.
- Mongan, Joseph W.
- Mulcahy, Richard.
- Murphy, James E.
- Murphy, Joseph Xavier.
- Myles, James Sproule.
- Nally, Martin Michael.
- Nolan, John Thomas.
- O'Connell, Richard.
- O'Connor, Bartholomew.
- O'Donovan, Timothy Joseph.
- O'Hanlon, John F.
- O'Higgins, Thomas.
- O'Mahony, Dermot Gun.
- O'Reilly, John J.
- O'Sullivan, Gearoid.
- O'Sullivan, John Marcus.
- Rice, Vincent.
- Sheehy, Timothy (West Cork).
- Thrift, William Edward.
- Tierney, Michael.
- Vaughan, Daniel.
- White, John.
- White, Vincent Joseph.
- Wolfe, George.
Níl
- Aiken, Frank.
- Blaney, Neal.
- Boland, Patrick.
- Bourke, Daniel.
- Brady, Seán.
- Briscoe, Robert.
- Buckley, Daniel.
- Carney, Frank.
- Cassidy, Archie J.
- Colbert, James.
- Cooney, Eamon.
- Corkery, Dan.
- Corish, Richard.
- Crowley, Fred. Hugh.
- Crowley, Tadhg.
- Davin, William.
- Doyle, Edward.
- Everett, James.
- Fahy, Frank.
- Flinn, Hugo.
- Fogarty, Andrew.
- French, Seán.
- Gorry, Patrick J.
- Goulding, John.
- Hayes, Seán.
- Houlihan, Patrick.
- Jordan, Stephen.
- Kennedy, Michael Joseph.
- Kent, William R.
- Kerlin, Frank.
- Killilea, Mark.
- Kilroy, Michael.
- Lemass, Seán F.
- McEllistrim, Thomas.
- MacEntee, Seán.
- Moore, Séamus.
- Mullins, Thomas.
- O'Dowd, Patrick Joseph.
- O'Kelly, Seán T.
- O'Leary, William.
- O'Reilly, Matthew.
- O'Reilly, Thomas.
- Powell, Thomas P.
- Ruttledge, Patrick J.
- Ryan, James.
- Sexton, Martin.
- Tubridy, John.
- Walsh, Richard.
- Ward, Francis C.
Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Duggan and P.S. Doyle; Níl: Deputies Briscoe and Flinn.
Question declared carried.
Bill ordered to be reported with amendments.
The Dáil went out of Committee.
Bill reported with amendments.
Report Stage ordered for Thursday, 6th June, 1929.
The Dáil adjourned at 10.45 p.m. until Friday, 31st May.