asked the Minister for Justice if he will outline for the information of the House the regulations as to the use of dogs by the Garda Síochána for the maintenance of public order.
152.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Garda Police Dogs.
151.
andMr. McQuillan asked the Minister for Justice whether regulations have been made by him in regard to the use of police dogs; if he will indicate their nature; whether those regulations are statutory; and, if so, if he will indicate the authority and the relevant statutory instrument number of the existing regulations.
153.
andMr. McQuillan asked the Minister for Justice the authority, statutory or otherwise, under which police dogs may be permitted to attack members of the public without being muzzled.
154.
Mr. Ryan
asked the Minister for Justice the statutory provisions or ministerial regulations relating to the use of dogs by the Garda Síochána for the purpose of breaking up political demonstrations, and the occasions on which dogs have been so used.
With your permission, a Cheann Comhairle, I propose to take Questions Nos. 151 to 154 together.
There are no statutory provisions governing the use of dogs by the Garda Síochána nor are such necessary. They are trained to be obedient to their handlers and are used to assist them in the execution of their duties.
Police dogs are regularly used in other countries for the control of disorderly persons and since the establishment of a police-dog service in Dublin in December, 1960, they have been used successfully on a number of occasions for this purpose.
It is a matter for the police on the spot to decide whether the actions of a public gathering are, or are not likely to cause, a breach of the peace and it is the duty of the police to take such immediate steps as are reasonably necessary for the preservation of the peace and the maintenance of law and order.
While dissociating myself most emphatically from the "andrewmartins" of Deputy Dr. Browne and those accompanying him, I want to ask the Minister, do the Government seriously suggest that the employment of dogs is a suitable means of controlling crowds exercising a constitutional right to demonstrate, when all our experience teaches us that if any irregularity arises, it is possible for the Garda, by ordinary police methods, to restore order without any serious difficulty whatever? Is the Minister aware that a great many responsible people in this country, including myself and many of my colleagues, view the employment of dogs in this context as highly opprobrious and likely to cause the gravest concern among the people?
In reply to a later Question, I shall be making a very full statement on this matter. Perhaps the Deputy would leave the matter over until he has heard this reply?
155.
andMr. McQuillan asked the Minister for Justice whether police dogs are at all times unmuzzled when used on duty; and, if not, the circumstances when (a) they are muzzled and (b) unmuzzled.
Police dogs are not muzzled when accompanying their handlers on duty but are kept on the leash, unless circumstances otherwise require.
156.
asked the Minister for Justice whether it is the normal practice of the Garda Síochána to have and use police dogs at meetings and demonstrations in public, whether political or otherwise.
It is the normal practice of the Garda Síochána, as it is the practice of police forces elsewhere, to use police dogs to assist their handlers in the control of disorderly elements and in the enforcement of law and order.
Would the Minister tell us how, in the name of heavens, a dog could control a crowd?
The dog acts as a team with the handler.
157.
andMr. McQuillan asked the Minister for Justice the number of police dogs used in the incident arising from the protest march on the American Embassy on 23rd October; how many were muzzled; and how many were unmuzzled.
The number was two. As I mentioned in reply to an earlier Question, police dogs are not muzzled when accompanying their handlers but are kept on the leash, unless circumstances otherwise require.
158.
andMr. McQuillan asked the Minister for Justice if to relieve public anxiety he will make a statement on the incidents arising from the protest march on the American Embassy on 23rd October, and in particular as to the use of unmuzzled police dogs on that occasion.
159.
andMr. McQuillan asked the Minister for Justice why a group of persons were prevented by the Gardaí with the aid of police dogs from presenting a protest to the American Embassy on 23rd October, in view of the fact that they were allowed to do so the next day.
160.
andMr. McQuillan asked the Minister for Justice the circumstances under which a number of persons were allowed to be severely bitten by police dogs on 23rd October, although under the control by leash of members of the Garda.
161.
andMr. McQuillan asked the Minister for Justice whether it is proposed to hold an inquiry into the propriety of the conduct of those members of the Garda who, while controlling police dogs by a leash, allowed them to severely bite members of the public.
I propose with your permission, a Cheann Comhairle, to take Questions Nos. 158, 159, 160 and 161 together.
I regret that the incident on the 23rd October occurred. I regret that the persons taking part in the protest march saw fit to behave in a disorderly manner and to refuse to obey the directions of the police. I regret also that matters developed to the point where, in the actual situation which obtained, the Gardaí on the spot felt it necessary to use police dogs to maintain law and order.
The procedure and practice with regard to marches and demonstrations is well established. Those organising such demonstrations are expected to inform the authorities beforehand of the purpose of the march and the route to be followed. When this is done the Gardaí facilitate the organisers in every way with their arrangements and take all necessary precautions to ensure that law and order is maintained. Reasonable arrangements are always made for a representative delegation to go forward in advance of the main body to deliver messages or present petitions where this is required.
If the usual procedure had been followed in this instance, there would have been no trouble of any sort. This, unfortunately, was not the case.
The information before me goes to indicate that a meeting of the Irish Committee for Nuclear Disarmament was being held on the evening of the 23rd October. During the course of the meeting a member of the English Committee of One Hundred came into the hall and urged those present to abandon the meeting and follow him in a march on the American Embassy. He succeeded in persuading a number of those present to adopt this course. No notification of any sort was given to the police authorities. In consequence, when the local Gardaí learned that a number of persons had commenced to march on the American Embassy they were entirely unaware of the nature or purpose of the demonstration. When the marchers were requested to turn back some of them proceeded to lie down on the roadway and obstruct traffic while others volubly insisted on their rights to proceed to the Embassy and endeavoured to force their way through the small police cordon.
At this stage, the march was of a most disorderly character. The police van carrying the police dogs had in the meantime come upon the scene and in an endeavour to restore law and order and to prevent any further deterioration of the situation, their handlers brought the dogs into action. I must emphasise that had the leaders of the march not acted in such an irresponsible manner in trying to force their way through the cordon, the question of police action would not have arisen. The police had a duty to refuse to allow an unruly and aggressive crowd to make a demonstration before a foreign Embassy and the also to protect the Embassy and the adjoining property. The marchers had every opportunity of telling the police that they wished to send forward a letter of protest, but they chose not to do so and endeavoured to force their way through. The blame for anything which happened subsequently must, I think, in fairness, be attributed to them.
I would like to correct some false impressions about the nature of these incidents which seem to have got abroad. This was not a peaceful orderly demonstration by a group of responsible law-abiding citizens. The marchers made no attempt to nominate delegates to go forward and hand in a protest but insisted on marching on the Embassy en masse. There was no question of police dogs being set upon the marchers. Only two dogs were involved and they were at all times kept on a short leash by their handlers. They were not at any time used for any purpose other than the protection of their handlers in the execution of their duty.
If those who wish to organise peaceful demonstrations, whether to protest or otherwise, will co-operate with the police and follow what are by now well established procedures, there is no reason why an incident of this sort should ever recur.
Do we take it the Minister deprecates the use of dogs on this occasion?
It is not for me to deprecate the action taken by the police to deal with a particular situation. I can only give the House this categorical assurance. If any group of persons who wish to organise a parade of this nature co-operate with the police, they will be afforded every facility by the police, every arrangement for their protection will be made and all necessary measures for the peaceful, law-abiding outcome of the procession will be taken.
Has it now reached the stage that if a small group of citizens wish to make a perfectly normal, peaceful protest, which takes the form of handing in a letter of protest by one or two of its members, and simply because of some trifling matter they fail to notify the police they wish to make such a protest, the Minister condones the use of half-savage dogs to prevent those people from making the protest?
The sort of protest to which the Deputy has referred was in fact arranged for last Friday night and passed off without incident.
Is it not a fact that the Minister recognises that the protest march was an impromptu march carried out because of the world situation at that time? Is it not a fact that the group — I was a member of that group—knew they would have to stop 50 yards or more from the Embassy, and did so? Further, is it not a fact that I went forward and asked the station sergeant, knowing that was the likely procedure, if I might go out with one other person and present a document to the Embassy, but he refused to allow me to do so? Is it not a fact there was no suggestion anybody intended to go through at all and that, as the Minister said, they lay down?
Further arising out of the Minister's reply, if it is suggested this was a disorderly mob which was besetting the Guards, why is it that none of the members of the group were brought to court on the following day and charged with any offences arising out of the meeting? Is it not a fact that the dogs were set on me in Lincoln Place approximately 250 yards from the Embassy by the man in charge and is it not a fact — this may concern Deputies, and I can prove it — that when they kicked me, threw me on the ground and set the dogs on me, they knew I was in fact at that time a Deputy?
Quite true.
I think I have given a full and fair account of the incident which has been compiled from reliable and objective sources and I do not propose to add any further to what I have said.
Are we all agreed that in general principle the use of dogs to reinforce the Garda Síochána in the ordinary control of crowds is not to be the normal practice of the Garda Síochána?
Of course, it is not to be and is not in fact the normal practice.
May I ask the Minister if, when he refers to the situation in other countries, it is a fact that in Britain when it was contemplated that dogs would be used by the police in such a manner, the proposal was dropped by the authorities there? Is it not the position that outside Buchenwald, Dachau and other concentration camps, it is not known that dogs were set on innocent citizens in the pursuit of an innocent protest march? Is it not unknown that human beings, outside the worst criminals, should be subjected to attack by dogs?
There are so many sub-questions contained in Deputy McQuillan's supplementary questions that I find it difficult to follow him. I am afraid that he is misinformed about Great Britain. The situation there is, as it is in a great many other countries, that police dogs are regularly used for the purpose which I shall be elaborating in reply to a later question.
The Minister in his original reply suggested that these dogs were for the protection of their handlers. Could he say whether, in fact, anybody was bitten last Monday night?
That is dealt with in my reply to a further question.
I am solely anxious at this stage that the truth should be known. Would the Minister consider the establishment of some tribunal in order to have objective evidence? Further arising out of the suggestion that the handlers were using these dogs to defend themselves, the child who was most injured was a boy about five feet tall.
When an incident like this occurs, an investigation is always carried out by the police authorities, as a matter of routine. That is always done and will be done in this instance. Furthermore, if any individual has a complaint about his treatment by the Garda Síochána on this occasion and makes that complaint to me, I shall see that it is fully and thoroughly investigated.
Is it not clear that the dogs were on the spot by accident and that there was indiscretion on somebody's part and that the dogs were used?
That is the Deputy's interpretation.
That is what the Minister said, that they were there by accident, just happened to be in the area.