I move:—
Before Section 3, to insert a new section as follows:—
(1) Any Irish citizen whose detention has been ordered or directed by a Minister under the powers contained in Section 2 of the Principal Act shall have the right to appeal to the High Court against such order, direction and detention.
(2) On the hearing of such appeal such person shall submit himself to cross-examination on oath by counsel for a Minister or the Attorney-General.
(3) After hearing any evidence that may be submitted by or on behalf of such person and such cross-examination as aforesaid and such evidence as may be submitted by a Minister or the Attorney-General the court shall determine whether or not there are reasonable grounds for the continued detention of such person or may order his release.
(4) Such release as aforesaid shall not be ordered unless the court is satisfied that the person appealing was not a member of or associated with an unlawful association or was not engaged in unlawful activities or that he has ceased to be a member of such organisation and that he undertakes to refrain from all unlawful activities and enters into a recognisance with satisfactory sureties to keep the peace.
This amendment is designed to secure that an innocent, honest man will have his remedy if, at any time, an order of internment should be made against him. The terms of the amendment are almost identical with what is to be found in some other Acts dealing with much the same sort of subject, but not so important as the liberty of the individual. Powers of internment may, and can, and might be used against individuals either by mistake or otherwise. The amendment is framed to meet a case of that sort. It gives an opportunity to an aggrieved person to go before the High Court, to make his case against detention, and to subject himself to cross-examination by counsel for the Minister or for the Attorney-General. It gives, in my opinion, a fair opportunity to the citizen to make his case. But it goes further, because it provides, in sub-section (4), for the case of a person who wishes either to sever his connection with an organisation which is regarded as unlawful, or who has already severed his connection with that organisation. The amendment will not interfere with the administration of the law as described in Section 2 of the Bill.
I understand that an order is in course of preparation for the setting up of a commission. My objection to that commission is that there is only one person of legal knowledge on it. It is possible, of course, that two others may be placed on it, but a solicitor or a barrister of seven years' standing does not appear to be as suitable a person as a judge of the High Court. It is true, of course, that provision is also made for having, instead of a solicitor or a barrister of seven years' standing, a person who has been a judge of the Supreme Court, the High Court, the Circuit Court or a justice of the District Court. You have not a very large number of person who have been judges of the Supreme Court, the High Court, the Circuit Court or justices of the District Court, and it may be that they might not be agreeable to undertake this work. I should say, as regards persons who have been members of one or other of these courts, that in the vast majority of cases they are advanced in years. I am moving the amendment which has for its object the liberty of the individual, of the honest man, the man who is not guilty of, and has not taken part in, any unlawful activity in this State, and, alternatively, for the person who, having been so engaged, now ceases to do so or ceases to do so within the prescribed time.
