asked the Minister for Finance if he will state in respect of the seizure of a lorry, registered No. B.I. 2542, in March of this year (a) what goods were found in the lorry the export of which was being attempted; (b) whether the lorry and goods were seized on the occasion and the place in which the seizure was effected; (c) what became of the vehicle and contents; (d) if the lorry and goods were confiscated or released on payment of a revenue penalty; (e) the amount of the penalty, if any, and how long the vehicle was held by the customs authorities, and (f) if any charge was preferred against the owner; and, if so, what was the outcome of such proceedings.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Seizure of Lorries.
The information required is as follows:— (a) 420 dozen eggs; (b) the goods were seized on the occasion at the Drumfurrer border, County Monaghan. The lorry was not seized until the following day at Glenbeg, Emyvale, some few miles away; (c) the vehicle is still in the hands of the Revenue Commissioners who propose to sell it; the goods have been disposed of by sale; (d) the lorry and goods were confiscated; (e) no penalty has been inflicted. The vehicle has been in custody since 24th March, 1950; (f) no charge has been preferred against the owner of the lorry.
asked the Minister for Finance if he will state in regard to the seizure of the lorry carrying 27 pigs by customs officers on the TyroneMonaghan border, arising out of which charges of attempted smuggling were preferred against the driver of the lorry, why the owner of the lorry and pigs was not coupled with the defendant in these charges.
The answer to the Deputy is that the owner of the pigs was proceeded against, and that there was no evidence to warrant proceedings against the person in whose name the lorry was subsequently found to have been registered.
I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary to indicate what precedent there is for failure on the part of the prosecution to couple the owner of the vehicle and the property being exported in the proceedings that were taken following the decision.
The mere ownership of the lorry itself is not evidence that the owner was himself concerned in smuggling. Consequently——
A Chinn Chomhairle——
The Parliamentary Secretary has not finished.
I would like the Parliamentary Secretary to state who has the responsibility of making the decision as to whether mere ownership is evidence of smuggling or not.
Not local felons, in any case.
The legal advisers to the Revenue Commissioners.
On whose instructions did the legal advisers act when they decided not to proceed against this man?
They acted on their own instructions.
They acted on the instructions of the Minister for Agriculture.
That is a monstrous allegation.
There is no truth whatever in that allegation.
There is not a scintilla of truth in that allegation and it is hard to refrain from saying that the Deputy knows it.
The whole country is aware of it.
The Minister's word must be taken.
It is a shameful reflection on the Revenue Commissioners.
That is a reflection on an officer of the Revenue Commissioners by the Deputy.
Have an inquiry.
He will not get out of it that way.
He will have a right one this time, not like the Dr. Ward one.
asked the Minister for Finance if he will state the reason for the failure of the prosecution to produce evidence in court as to the ownership of a lorry, D.Z. 2804, the seizure of which resulted in a prosecution against the driver on a charge of smuggling 27 pigs over the MonaghanTyrone Border in May of this year.
No question was raised at the hearing as to the ownership of the lorry, and evidence in that regard was therefore not required.
Will the Parliamentary Secretary say why it is that evidence as to the ownership was not produced in court by the prosecution?
Because it was not required.
Will the Parliamentary Secretary say if in any previous case of a similar kind this practice was followed by the prosecution?
If the Deputy wants to put down a question I will answer it.