Vol. 195 No. 2
asked the Minister for Justice how many persons convicted by the Special Criminal Court since that Court began to function in 1961 of offences scheduled under the Offences Against the State Act, 1939, were (1) employed by (a) the State, (b) local authorities, and (c) semi-State organisations; and (2) in receipt of pensions from any of the sources (a), (b) and (c) above.
54.
asked the Minister for Justice whether any persons convicted by the Special Criminal Court since that Court began to function in 1961 of offences scheduled under the Offences Against the State Act, 1939, have been granted either full pardon or full or partial remission of sentence; if so, how many; and whether any such person was an employee of the State, a local authority, or a semi-State organisation.
55.
asked the Minister for Justice whether circular letters have recently been sent out to local authorities instructing them that under the provisions of section 34 of the Offences Against the State Act, 1939, all persons convicted under this Act forfeit their employment by State or local authorities and forfeit State and local authority pensions; whether local authorities are legally compelled to dismiss any person so convicted; and whether the local authority may under any conditions re-employ such a person; and, if so, what are those conditions.
With the permission of the Ceann Comhairle, I propose to take Questions Nos. 53, 54 and 55 together.
The question of a pardon for a convicted person arises only where it is shown that the person was wrongly convicted, that is to say, that he was not guilty of the offence or offences of which he was convicted. There has been no such case in relation to convictions by the Special Criminal Court.
As regards mitigation or remission of penalties, the position is that there has recently been a general amnesty under which 24 prisoners convicted by the Special Criminal Court (as well as five others convicted of similar offences by the ordinary Courts) were released, the balance of their sentences being remitted. Before that, there had been three individual cases where the balance of sentence was remitted.
Apart from penalties that may be imposed by the Court, Section 34 of the Offences Against the State Act, 1939, provides, in substance, that any person convicted by the Special Criminal Court of scheduled offences automatically forfeits any employment under or pension from the State, a semi-State body or a local authority and is disqualified for a period of seven years from the date of conviction from holding any such employment. Accordingly, all Government Departments have been notified by my Department of the names of the persons convicted and their attention has been drawn to the provisions of Section 34. Each Department was also asked to arrange to convey this information to the semi-State bodies or local authorities with which it is concerned.
This notification was, of course, an ordinary administrative act which was necessary to enable Departments and other bodies to discharge their obligations in the matter. These obligations, as I have indicated, are statutory— they arise from the terms of the section itself and not from the notification that emanated from my Department.
The duty to give effect to the section rests with the particular Department, semi-State body or local authority that may be concerned and, apart from the issue of the notification mentioned, I have no function in the matter. Accordingly, my Department's records do not show with certainty how many persons were affected. They do show, however, that the list of convicted persons includes three employees of semi-State bodies and one employee of a local authority. All four were amongst those who got the benefit of remission of balance of sentence. It is unlikely that there are any others. I am not in a position to say if there is any case where a pension is affected but no such case has come to my notice.
Would the Minister say whether or not State, semi-State bodies, or local authorities have any discretion at all in the application of Section 34?
No discretion at all.
Is it the practice to send out a circular in the terms of the Minister's recent circular on each occasion on which a person is liberated from the Curragh or some other internment camp?
I think the Deputy is under a misapprehension. The circular was sent out purely as a matter of administration under the Statute long before the amnesty was granted. There was no connection between the issue of the circular and the general amnesty.
Does it mean that anybody who is in the employment of a local authority or some semi-State body automatically loses his job?
For seven years, yes.
Would the Minister not think there is, in present circumstances, a case for a relaxation of this particular section?
The section is part of a Statute passed by this House and there is no question of a relaxation of the section.
An amendment, then?
That is a separate question. It would require legislation to amend the Offences Against the State Act. The issue of the circular was a purely administrative matter to ensure that Government Departments, local authorities and semi-State bodies did what the Statute obliges them to do.
Is it correct then that a local authority which continues to employ a person convicted by the courts under the Offences Against the State Act may be surcharged by the particular Minister?
It is certainly illegal, and in contravention of the Statute, for a local authority to continue to employ such a person.
It has been done.
What triggered off the necessity for sending out this particular circular? When was such a circular last sent out?
When the Special Criminal Court was set up and persons coming before it were convicted, as a natural, logical, administrative sequence a circular had to be issued to the various bodies concerned.
I accept that, but would the Minister say why it was necessary at this particular time to send out another circular?
The Deputy is under a misapprehension. The circular was not sent out "at this particular time" It was sent out some months ago.
Why?
Pursuant to the setting up of the Special Criminal Court.
At that particular time?
Yes.
Automatically, at that particular time?
Yes.
