Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Friday, 10 Jul 1931

Vol. 39 No. 15

In Committee on Finance. - Vote 26—Law Charges.

Minister for Finance (Mr. Blythe)

I move:—

Go ndeontar suim ná raghaidh thar £40,637 chun slánuithe na suime is gá chun íoctha an Mhuirir a thiocfaidh chun bheith iníoctha i rith na bliana dar críoch an 31adh lá de Mhárta, 1932, chun Costaisí Coir-Phróiseacht agus Dlí-Mhuirireacha eile maraon le Deontas i gcabhair do Chostaisí áirithe is iníoctha amach as Rátaí Aitiúla do réir Reachta.

That a sum not exceeding £40,637 be granted to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1932, for the Expenses of Criminal Prosecutions and other Law Charges, including a Grant in relief of certain Expenses payable by Statute out of Local Rates.

Mr. Little

There is one item—Defence of Public Officials—in the Law Charges which I cannot allow to pass without severely criticising. The first thing to note about it is that it is a token figure amounting to the round sum of £800 this year. Last year it also amounted to the round figure of £800. A token figure is a phrase that was invented during the war when the British authorities did not want to give information to the enemy. They put down a round sum and left it at that. We have exactly the same figure appearing from year to year while it is known that law costs work out in pounds, shillings and pence. The most objectionable thing about the Vote is that it includes the payment of costs to the Gárda Síochána for carrying out duties that were imposed on them. Otherwise I do not suppose these costs would be paid. These duties are of the most odious nature and are contrary to public policy. No one would object to the general principle that there should be an item for Law Charges to protect certain public officials in carrying out their duties, but when the duties are of such a nature as to place them in the category of persons carrying out third degree methods, I think we are bound to vote against such an item and register our thorough disapproval of the methods which led to these actions. We have one example of a case which could not be regarded as political where, owing to the training of these men, the way in which they have been taught to use the third degree methods actions were taken against several of them in Co. Waterford. These actions were won and damages were awarded against officers of the Government. When the cases were over, the Government did not stand over their own training and instruction, and more or less repudiated the conduct of these men. They have not done so in other cases. I have a list where similar conduct was indulged in and where none of these men, on the admission of the Minister for Justice, has been dismissed, while the expenses incurred have been imposed on the public through this Vote. These are some of the cases: O'Neill v. Kinsella and others; MacKeon v. Sherlock; Sugrue v. Kinsella; O'Donoghue v. Donegan; Dempsey v. Lane; Vaughan v. Lane; Hanlon v. Corry; O'Brien v. Monaghan; Thackaberry v. Moore; Hamilton v. Monaghan; Holden v. Corry; Farrell v. Corry.

In all these cases the costs of actions which were lost by the officials must ultimately be taken from our pocket. There was a case in Co. Clare, Fennell v. English, and in Co. Waterford the case of Corbett v. McNamara. The following were also successfully used: Detective Sergeant Byrne, Detective Sergeant Gill, Detective Officer Hussy, Detective Officer Rodgers, Detective Officer Cornelius Coughlan. All those men have been carrying out the orders of the Government, and those orders were of such a nature as to render brutal conduct on their part necessary in carrying out their duties, with the result that actions were taken against them. For that reason it is necessary to vote against this Estimate as a protest and as the only remedy that we have to stop these methods from being indulged in in future.

Mr. Blythe

I would like to say that brutal conduct of any sort on the part of the police has neither been encouraged nor condoned. There have been cases where perhaps policemen may have lost their tempers a little bit under extreme provocation. We do not—and I do not think it would be right—insist that in such cases policemen should necessarily be dismissed. But if any such cases happened the policemen have been warned that it must not happen again. Generally there has been no misconduct on the part of the police. I do not think any country could be found where the police have tasks as difficult as they have here, and where there was so much restraint used, or where the Government were so strict to take action of the sort we took. I would venture to say that it has never happened that policemen have been so controlled, having regard to the circumstances and to recent history, as they have been in this country. I think nothing has happened that we have any cause to be in the least ashamed about. Human nature is human nature, and sometimes a policeman may strike a man under extreme provocation, just as would happen in any country, and as happens occasionally in every country. The only thing for the Government to do in such a case is to take whatever may be suitable action in the circumstances and to prevent any bad habits arising. With reference to the cases in which damages were awarded against policemen in Dublin, these policemen arrested certain persons in Dublin under orders. When the cases came before the courts it was quite clear that there was no option for the jury but to find that there had been a technical offence on the part of the police, and they awarded a sum as damages.

In many cases, I think the jury showed a judicial attitude and awarded damages which were not unreasonable in all the circumstances. But that does not mean that the police were wrong. All it means is that we could not expose witnesses to the danger of being shot, and it was not possible to put the information which was before the Government before the Court. Everybody knows that any person who gives information about these illegal murder organisations is liable to suffer for doing what is his public duty. Because of that, although we had information quite sufficient to justify the police action, it was not possible for us to bring that evidence before the court. Consequently, the court had no option but to find that a technical illegality had been committed. We think it is necessary that police costs should be paid in these cases and in all cases where the policeman acts in a bona fide manner, without malice and without brutality, in the execution of his duty, as he sees it. It would be impossible— especially when we have illegal organisations—to carry on if a policeman felt that when he committed a technical breach of the law he was going to be mulcted in costs and damages which would make it impossible for him to remain in the force. With regard to another case in which damages were awarded against the police, and in which there was no connection with any political action, the court was of opinion that something illegal had been done by the police. We were not disposed in any way to dispute that finding, but one thing, I think, has come as a result of that trial—that juries, in future, are not going to give absolutely inflated and ridiculous damages. The idea seemed to have got about then that in a case in which £1 would be reasonable damages a jury ought to give hundreds of pounds, as the State would pay. We are not going to pay, and juries have to understand that, if they show malice against the police, they are going to ruin the policeman individually, and that it is not merely a question of placing heavy damages on a broad back.

A Deputy asked about the sum. You can never be sure that in any single sub-head the amount will exactly tally with the expenditure. What is done is to put down a round sum that ought, in view of all the circumstances as they can be foreseen, to meet the expenditure. If, over some years, the expenditure is higher than the amount of the estimate, and no circumstances can be seen that would lead one to believe that it would be less in the next year, the amount can be raised. But you cannot come down to pounds, shillings and pence in an estimate. You must take a round figure.

Mr. de Valera

I should like the Minister to explain a little more fully the statement that juries will understand if they are going to award large damages in future, that these damages will have to be borne by the individual concerned. How is he going to distinguish between the cases? The Minister's statement is not complete. I want to know how is the distinction to be made.

Mr. Blythe

I am afraid the explanation would not be quite in order. However, I may refer to one case which was entirely non-political. Deputy Little referred to that case. Very heavy damages were awarded against the police in that action. We believe that the size of the damages, which was ridiculous, was determined by the belief that the Government would pay and that no injustice was being done to any policeman by awarding these enormous damages. I want to make clear that, in circumstances of that sort, we are not going to place a burden of that nature on the shoulders of the taxpayers.

Mr. de Valera

Is the decision only taken when the case is over?

Mr. Blythe

It would have to be decided afterwards.

Mr. de Valera

Where officers have carried out their duties, so far as the Government knows, in accordance with their orders and have acted in a spirit of discipline, is it not the rule to pay any damages that may be awarded?

Mr. Blythe

Certainly, if a policeman acts directly under orders. I do not want to discuss the case, but that was not so in the case to which Deputy Little referred.

Mr. Little

Might I ask the Minister if the Government pays merely the costs or the costs and damages? I have in mind cases in which damages were never paid and where the policemen are still kept in their positions.

Mr. de Valera

I, for one, absolutely dissent from the attitude which the Minister proposes to take up. It seems to me that it is going to work out like this: if heavy damages are awarded against an individual, he will have to pay them. The man is going to be ruined. If there is to be a principle that where an officer carries out his duties according to his instructions, acts within the law and acts properly, whatever damages may be given against him for a technical breach of the law shall be met by the State, then why should the State shirk its duty when heavy damages are awarded? Is it not due to the orders that the man receives? I think that that is an extraordinary principle.

Mr. Blythe

We are dealing with two different sorts of cases. If a Gárda received orders from a Superintendent which were illegal, that there was some technical illegality, if he carried out that order without any personal misconduct, carried it out properly, but that there was some breach of the law, and that he was mulcted in damages for that, we would certainly meet his immediate expenses.

Mr. Derrig

Are we to take it that the Minister is laying down the principle that the jury cannot give damages against the State for the reputation and character of a person who has suffered an indignity? The character and the reputation of the individual concerned is very often a matter upon which damages are allowed. If there is a wrongful arrest and that the jury consider that the plaintiff has suffered an indignity, the Minister is not laying down the principle that the jury are not entitled to award any damages?

Mr. Blythe

I am laying down the principle that juries cannot award heavy sums in the confident belief that the damages will be paid, and that the person against whom the award is made will not suffer.

Mr. de Valera

I submit that this is an attempt to coerce the jury or else to leave servants of the State in the lurch—one or other, or both.

Mr. Little

Does the Minister suggest that when officers of the Government came into court to fight a case, they refused to produce all the evidence they had to prove their case?

Mr. Blythe

We were certainly not going to put anybody in the witness box for the purpose of getting him shot.

Mr. Derrig

Will the Minister submit proof to the House that such witnesses would be shot if they were put in the box?

Mr. Blythe

There have been people shot, as the Deputy knows.

Mr. Derrig

Who have been shot? When the Minister is afraid or unable to answer a question he has to fall back on the despicable argument which he is unable to support by any evidence.

Question put: The Committee divided:

Tá, 65; Níl, 47.

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. O'Sullivan, Gearóid.O'Sullivan, John Marcus.Redmond William Archer.Rice, Vincent.Roddy, Martin.Shaw, Patrick W.Sheehy, Timothy (West Cork).

Fitzgerald, Desmond.Fitzgerald-Kenney, James.Good, John.Gorey, Denis J.Hassett, John J.Heffernan, Michael R.Hennessy, Michael Joseph.Hennessy, Thomas.Hennigan, John.Henry, Mark.Hogan, Patrick (Galway).Kelly, Patrick Michael.Lynch, Finian.Mathews, Arthur Patrick.McDonogh, Martin.McFadden, Michael Og.McGilligan, Patrick.Mongan, Joseph W.Mulcahy, Richard.Myles, James Sproule.Nally, Martin Michael.Nolan, John Thomas.O'Connell, Richard.O'Connor, Bartholomew.O'Leary, Daniel.O'Mahony, The. Thrift, William Edward.Tierney, Michael.White, John.White, Vincent Joseph.Wolfe, George.Wolfe, Jasper Travers.

Níl

Aiken, Frank.Anthony, Richard.Blaney, Neal.Boland, Gerald.Bourke, Daniel.Briscoe, Robert.Broderick, Henry.Buckley, Daniel.Carty, Frank.Clery, Michael.Colbert, James.Corkery, Dan.Crowley, Fred Hugh.Crowley, Tadhg.Davin, William.Derrig, Thomas.De Valera, Eamon.Doyle, Edward.Everett, James.Fahy, Frank.Flinn, Hugo.Fogarty, Andrew.Gorry, Patrick J.Goulding, John.

Harris, Thos.Hayes, Seán.Houlihan, Patrick.Jordan, Stephen.Kennedy, Michael Joseph.Kilroy, Michael.Lemass, Seán F.Little, Patrick John.Maguire, Ben.MacEntee, Sean.Moore, Séamus.O'Kelly, Seán T.O'Leary, William.O'Reilly, Matthew.O'Reilly, Thomas.Ruttledge, Patrick J.Ryan, James.Sexton, Martin.Sheehy, Timothy (Tipp.).Smith, Patrick.Tubridy, John.Walsh, Richard.Ward, Francis C.

Question declared carried.

Tellers: Tá, Deputies Duggan and P.S. Doyle; Níl, Deputies G. Boland and Briscoe.