I will carry it no further. I only saw the report. I would be very glad, for the interest of the State and all concerned, if some Minister would deny that it ever happened or show that it never happened. If there is going to be a situation in which people sentenced by any court in this country, whether a special powers court, a military court, or an ordinary court, will be released without any suggestion that they were not guilty or that further facts had come to light which proved their innocence and, if on the other hand, others are to be put in the dock in peril of their lives under an order like this, it is really no wonder that people like the Minister for Local Government can get up and make the ridiculous statement about the ordinary fundamental laws, because if that sort of thing happens there is no law or order or respect for the fundamental law, as he said, not alone the natural or moral law.
It was very lucky for the Government, and they made very good value out of it, that the Chief Justice passed the remark about Article 5—that it might possibly be used in favour of the defence. If the Chief Justice had not made that remark, I wonder how many Ministers would have thought of that point—that it was quite possible to construe something in Article 5 in favour of the defence? In other words, that a court might allow the rules of evidence to be waived in favour of the defence. If I was defending a prisoner before a court like that, I do not think it would be very much advantage to me to have the rules of evidence waived in my favour under Article 5 by the time all those possible things that might happen to my client had happened under Articles 3 and 4, although it might be very pleasant to know that the court was good enough to give him the same opportunity as it gave to counsel for the State.
I want to make it clear that nobody on this side of the House either slandered or jibed or sneered at the three officers who compose the court, or suggested that they were in the pockets of the Government. It was like an echo to hear that. You would imagine it was a voice coming from the past. Certainly there was no suggestion by anybody on this side of the House of slander or jibing or sneering or that these people were in the pockets of the Government. I have had a certain amount of experience before this court and, so far as their conduct and treatment of people representing prisoners are concerned, I could not speak too highly of them. As a matter of fact, for people who had no legal experience or judicial training, they do very well indeed. But what has that to do with it? They may be the decentest men in the world, but they are being put into a position where a prisoner may be placed before them and the State will say: "We intended to call two witnesses, but one of them is missing; we believe he has been kidnapped. Here is his statement." Then the Gárda officer says that he took that statement in writing and that it was acknowledged or signed or something of that kind. If it is a question of a voluntary statement, he can certainly be cross-examined on that by the counsel for the defence. But, if it is a statement taken under an enactment, all the Gárda officer or Gárda need say is that, pursuant to the Offences Against the State Act, he took a statement from so-and-so, reduced it to writing and the person acknowledged it.
That is all right when the person who made the statement is missing. But what happens when the witness is present? The witness goes into the box, takes the oath, and is examined by counsel for the prosecution. He probably gives his name and address, but when he is asked the first relevant question as to the statement, he then denies on oath that he made that statement, or says that the statement was not framed in the way that he intended. Here you have the position that a Gárda officer says that he reduced the statement to writing; that he took it from this person, and that he acknowledged it. That is handed in and may be accepted as evidence. The man who is alleged to have made the statement says on oath that he did not make the statement, or that, if he made the statement, his statement has been misconstrued or has been written down in such a way that it does not show his intentions or the words that he used.
The Minister or nobody else in this House is so simple as to imagine that things like that never happened. I do not claim to have such experience of the courts as Deputy Costello, Deputy McGilligan, or Deputy Fitzgerald-Kenney, but I know of cases where that sort of thing happened. Just to give an instance, I can tell the Minister of a case where a young man was prosecuted for an assault on a police officer, and where a witness, who was a very strong supporter of the Minister's own Party, was called by the State. He was asked the usual formal questions, but when it came to the vital point of his statement, which was being read out by the State solicitor, he stated: "I never said that." The question was: "Did you see this assault take place?" The witness said: "I never said that." The State solicitor asked for leave to cross-examine him as a hostile witness. I may point out that all honour was due to that man, who was giving evidence against a very strong political opponent. Even as a hostile witness, the State solicitor could not get any more out of him. I was acting for the defence, and I asked him two questions. The first was: "Did you make a statement?" He answered: "Yes." The next was: "Is that the statement you made?" He answered: "No." Then I asked who made the statement and he said that the Guards knew that the statement was bullied out of him by two people who took him to the barracks to make the statement. But the Gárdaí produced that statement as the statement of that person. That man was honourable enough to admit that he had been induced to give a written statement to the Gárdaí that he had actually seen the other man assault a police officer, when in fact he had not. I should like to know what the feelings of the Special Powers Tribunal would be if something like that happens. If a Gárda says that he reduced a statement to writing and that it was acknowledged, they are entitled to accept it as evidence. Then the man goes into the witness box and says that it is not his evidence, or if it is, portion of his statement has been wrongly written down. What are they going to do about it?
Whose evidence are they going to accept? It will give rise to an extraordinary position. I might point out to the Minister that there is no such thing as a voluntary statement except on very few occasions. The only voluntary statement I know of is the statement made by a person who is in a motor smash and who wants to get in first. So far as criminal offences are concerned, there is very seldom any such thing as a voluntary statement. When reduced to writing, they are not always the original statements of the persons concerned. I remember a district justice, on reading a statement in an infanticide case, stating that it was the first time he had ever seen a statement which looked like a perfectly voluntary statement because it was written down in narrative form and in the type of words you would expect the person to use.
What happens in the case of an ordinary statement? A young boy, say, is being interrogated because he is suspected of having poached salmon with some other boys. The Gárdaí get a statement out of him, but what happens? He is brought to the barracks and told: "We know you were there that night. We have got a statement from Paddy Murphy already, and the quicker you make one to save yourself the better." Of course, the lad immediately makes the statement and signs it. Then they send for Paddy Murphy. He comes in and they say to him: "We know you were there. Johnny Riordan made a statement and you better make one to save your own skin." Then he makes a statement. There is no good in the Minister or anybody else expecting us to be so terribly simple as to believe that things like that never happen. I know from my own experience that they have happened. Anyone who has anything to do with courts knows quite well that they happen. As long as there is any crime or any attempt at running down crime these things will happen. On occasions like that I can imagine that to take a statement in that way would be quite laudable. There is the suggestion of statements made voluntarily. To be voluntary, in my mind, the statement should be one where a person says he wishes to tell something about a particular offence and then reels it off in his own words and the Guard writes it down. It is very seldom that that occurs. It is nearly always question and answer and develops like this. The Guard says: "What time did this happen?" The man making the statement says that it happened about 9.30. The Guard says: "Are you sure?" and the reply is "Well, I am not sure, but it was about 9.30." You will never find "about 9.30" in the formal statement, but it will say: "At 9.30, I was on the banks of the river and was accompanied" and so on. It will not be in the expressions of the person who made it. The statement is taken down and reduced to writing by Civic Guards, and that always reminds me that, in giving evidence, they will never say they saw a person but that they "observed" him, nor will they say they went to a place but that they "proceeded" there.
When different words are being used from the words a person uses in natural language, it is very easy to put down something in writing which will bear an entirely different construction from that which the person intended. What puzzles me more about this order than anything else is that, if I approached it with a completely open mind at 3 o'clock yesterday and said that I was going to vote for or against this motion on the arguments I heard, I would be in a rather peculiar position to-day. The Minister for Justice seems to want the Emergency Order on one little set of grounds and the Taoiseach—while it is not so much that he does not want the order on different grounds—certainly does not want it on the same grounds as the Minister for Justice. The concluding portion of his statement yesterday was: "I am not asking for this order on the basis of the statement of the Minister for Justice about the present situation and the danger from outside." Anybody whose mind was in doubt as to the case for the order had those doubts very rapidly cleared when they heard the speeches of the four Ministers who have spoken already—the Taoiseach, the Minister for Justice, the Minister for Education and the Minister for Local Government and Public Health.
I know there is no case at all for the order. The only case that has been adduced is talk about a conspiracy and suggestions that the conspiracy has something to do with people outside the country, a list by the Minister for Local Government and Public Health of crimes which are well over 12 months old, and a suggestion that there has been organised conspiracy going on for a long time to prevent people giving evidence. In regard to the last point, I would like to know how many cases the Government have failed to bring before any court simply because people have gone back on the evidence or statements already given. As far as I know —and I am entitled to cast my vote on what I know I have been told in this House—I only know of one case so far, where the State could not proceed with the prosecution because the witnesses retracted statements and in that respect I do not think that in itself would be an argument at all.
In cases where three or four people were concerned or suspected of being concerned with an offence, and made statements which implicated themselves and others, it is entirely within their rights, if they are liable to be subject to prosecution themselves, to get up in court and say that they refuse to give evidence on the lines of the statement, on the grounds that if they did give such evidence on oath, they would be giving evidence which would incriminate themselves. That is a fundamental rule of law—that nobody is bound to give evidence to incriminate himself. As far as I recollect, people who were asked to give evidence and had not been charged with the offence were subsequently charged with the offence themselves.
The Taoiseach has spoken a lot of the Government's right to make the order. Nobody denies that right, as the House gave the Government this Emergency Powers Act and took away that right from the House. The Government has the right to make it, and the Emergency Powers Order is based on this new Constitution. There are some people in this House and some outside it, I am quite sure, who would never agree to give the Government the Emergency Powers Act if they thought it would be used for such an order as this, or for other orders, and there are some people in this House who voted for the Constitution who were quite sure that never again in this country would anything be heard of like a Coercion Act.
If Coercion Acts and drastic orders like this are necessary, it is entirely the fault of the people who have been telling the young men of this country that, once they got into power themselves, they would produce a Constitution that would do away with all necessity for political activity, and who tried to convince them that, sooner or later, the day would come when nobody would question any political activity. They told them that, as long as certain things were not done it was just, it was right and it was patriotic to assail the institutions of the State. The Government, while in power themselves, just kept those people under their hand on the side, by saying to them: "Take your time and, sooner or later, we will satisfy you and do everything you want." They have not done everything those people wanted and those people have turned on them. It is entirely the Government's own fault.
In this respect I do not agree with the attitude of one member of the Labour Party, Deputy Hickey, who says that were it not for a certain political situation there would be no political crime. I am convinced that the cause of the crime is laxity by the Government in dealing with it. Time and again they said they would try to give these young men another chance to be good boys in the future. When the Offences Against the State Act was going through the House there was a speech from a Deputy on the Government Benches for a little more leniency. I do not approve of anybody like Deputy Hickey suggesting that, but for a certain political situation, there would be no political crime in this country. I am convinced that a person who carries on that type of outrage and that type of crime would not be satisfied if he got the millennium for the Thirty-Two Counties. They will not be satisfied with organised government, as they want anarchy or something like it. I do not believe it is too late, but the Government seem to think that it is, as the Minister for Local Government and Public Health said the situation is a serious menace, that there is a conspiracy to prevent the writ running in the courts of the country. According to the Minister for Justice there is a conspiracy of organised murder and a conspiracy to deal with people outside this country, to take away our national sovereignty. If one were to listen only to the speeches from the Government Benches and add up the terrifying total of all these charges, unsupported by fact except as regards the actual criminal offences, one might give them this order.
I warn the Minister that the most dangerous thing in this House for a long time was the statement last night about this organisation and that organisation and certain organisations which they also have an eye on—people engaged in a peculiar, subversive activity. Surely the people of the country are entitled to know if such organisations exist, and the names of those engaged in subversive activities, so that they may more properly deal with people who are known members of those organisations, and so that there will not be created an atmosphere of suspicion in which people will be whispering to one another: "What is the Minister for Justice talking about when he refers to those organisations? Was it pro-German, or was it pro-this or pro-that?" I think, in fairness to this House and to the people of the country, if there is a known organisation, which has a name and which is engaged in subversive activity, the quicker that information is given to the people the better. The Taoiseach, when speaking on that point in reply to Deputy Davin, said:
"I can only give the information that I have got from the Minister, and that was to the effect that there was a group who, while apparently keeping constitutionally all right, not part of this other organisation, were toying on the verge of it to such a point that, if proof either in their case or in the case of the others could be got, it would be a matter that would come definitely under the heading of treason."
There is an organisation, allegedly constitutional, which has toyed with something in the nature of treason. Do the Government propose to take steps to deal with that organisation, or do they adopt the attitude that they will wait until they can prefer a charge of treason? If these people are toying with subversive activities, why should not the Minister use the powers he has and intern the lot of them before they do any harm? Perhaps it is just another twist of the warped mind of the Government, that instead of preventing crime it is better to wait until the actual commission of the crime and have the satisfaction of convicting the man of a bigger offence. I have heard more silly and ridiculous statements about law and evidence from the Government Benches during the last two days than I ever heard before. If the Government's advisers have been teaching them the law in that way, it is no wonder that, since they came into power, they have failed to uphold the Acts passed by either themselves or the last Government. They are bringing in drastic Acts and are being met by habeas corpus. Then, they mend their hand and are met with another motion. That gives no confidence to the people.
The people would much prefer to see the Government put their cards on the table, say what we are facing in the way of conspiracy, put a name on the people and on the organisations concerned and say that they want certain powers to deal with them. Can the Government imagine what position they would be in at present as regards law were it not that the Emergency Powers Act gives them such wide powers and that it takes the power of the High Court to pronounce as to the constitutionality of any Act or order completely out of its hands? But for that power, the Government would not be out of the High Court any day of any week. I suggest to the Government that because the Emergency Powers Act takes away the functions of the High Court, as the natural guardian of the rights and liberties of citizens, they should not be less careful of the type of order they are introducing. They should have some regard for fundamental rights. Is it the duty of a court under this or any other order to hear evidence for the prosecution and defence and adjudge a prisoner guilty or innocent according to the weight of evidence or is it the duty of a court to make every effort to convict him? I submit that that is not the duty of any court and never will be so long as there is any element of law or order in this country.
It is easy for the Minister for Local Government virtually to joke about Articles 3 and 4 of this order. He said that, of course, when the special court was dealing with Article 5, which entitles it to ignore any rule of statutory or common law, it would take that Article in conjunction with Articles 3 and 4. That is the most utter nonsense which has been spoken about this Article in this debate. This order exists entirely because of Article 5. You could knock out Articles 3 and 4 and you would still give this court all the power it is given in Articles 3 and 4. That is because Article 5 is an omnibus clause and states that if, on any occasion, the court considers it proper that it should not be bound by any rule of evidence, whether statutory or at common law, the court shall not be bound by such rule. That gives the court power to disregard any rule of evidence or bring in any kind of evidence, animate or inanimate. The Minister for Local Government made a glorious point. He said the statement handed in on behalf of the prosecution would be an inanimate object—something like the blood stain on a piece of cloth in a murder exhibit. One great difference between the inanimate blood stain and the inanimate statement is that the statement talks and gives evidence and that the blood stain does not. The blood stain has to be connected by oral evidence with the charge. The statement speaks for itself. I am not satisfied to give these powers to this or any other Government without the gravest reasons. I have no sympathy with those who say that they would give the powers to the present Minister for Justice but would not give them to the Government. The present Minister for Justice, in his easy-going, apologetic way, gets away with far more than he would if he happened to be Attorney-General——