asked the Minister for Justice if, on Thursday, 2nd June, 1960, he made an order that Paul Singer be brought from Mountjoy Jail to the Central Criminal Court; and, if so, if he will state the exact terms of the order and the authority which he had for making such order.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - State v. Singer: Minister's Order.
11.
An Order was made under the authority of Section 11 of the Prison Act, 1898, and sub-section (8) of Section 43 of the Criminal Justice Administration Act, 1914. The Order was in the following terms:
"The Minister for Justice hereby orders and directs that Paul Singer, a prisoner at present confined in Mountjoy Prison, be produced at the Central Criminal Court on the 3rd June, 1960, and from day to day as may be necessary, the Minister for Justice being satisfied that the presence of the said Paul Singer at such place is required in the interest of justice."
Is the Minister now satisfied that his Order was valid and that the presence of the accused at the Central Criminal Court was in pursuance of a valid Order?
Yes, I am perfectly satisfied.
In spite of the fact that a habeas corpus Order was granted then and there in respect of the accused person?
Might I ask the Minister, in view of the eminent desirability of the law being vindicated in this matter, justice being done, criminals brought to justice and innocents set free, is it desirable to have recourse to these exotic procedures of which nobody has ever heard before? Is it not much more desirable to proceed according to the ordinary procedures of the law and not create a situation in which the judge presiding in the Criminal Court says: "What is that man doing in the dock in my court?" I do not think I am mistranslating what was reported in the public press. Does the Minister not realise that resort to such procedure causes considerable anxiety that the whole system of law is breaking down and that those responsible for criminal acts are not being made adequately and effectively to answer for their conduct to the appropriate court of law?
Orders of this kind are made frequently. There is nothing exceptional in the issue of this particular Order. In fact, this Order was issued in the interests of the prisoner to enable him to appear in court. I cannot understand why this matter should engage the attention of Deputies from the point of view that has just been expressed.
Surely the Minister is aware of the general public concern and dismay at the apparent atmosphere of confusion and bewilderment which appears to surround the proceedings in connection with the trial of this man?
The only fact that has arisen was the unexpected decision of the Supreme Court declaring irregular a practice that had been in operation for years.
That is not so.
It is so.
Does the Taoiseach not advert to the fact that, consequent upon that Order, there then arises the extraordinary situation in which the Minister makes an Order directing the production of the accused person in the Central Criminal Court and the presiding judge thereupon appears to inquire: "What is that man doing here?"
I do not think that is a matter we can discuss here.
At least, I suggest to the Taoiseach, these undesirable procedures give rise to considerable public perturbation of mind and create a very undesirable atmosphere of distrust in the efficient prosecution of the law.
As I understand it, it is the function of counsel defending an accused person to take advantage of any legal technicality open to him to protect his client's interests. It is the duty of the prosecution to see that persons charged with offences are brought properly to book.
I agree, but does the Taoiseach think this is the appropriate way in which to do that?
Is the Taoiseach seriously suggesting that the finding of the presiding judge in the Central Criminal Court and the granting of an Order of habeas corpus there and then, with an order for costs against the Attorney General, was an irregularity?
Surely we cannot discuss this matter here.
Surely the administration of the law is relevant.
Court proceedings are not open to discussion here.
If, Sir, an entirely unprecedented procedure is adopted for bringing a person before the court, a procedure which the presiding judge describes as incomprehensible, it is not improper for us to ask the Minister why he made that kind of Order.
I would need to be very fully advised as to whether it was an unprecedented Order.
It was invalid. It was found to be so.
The function of prosecution rests with the Attorney General.