Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 12 Oct 1966

Vol. 224 No. 8

Adjournment Debate. - Court Sentence on Homeless Man.

Mr. Dillon

I am raising a grave case of a citizen of this State who is described as homeless and friendless, hungry and sick, physically and mentally. I do not know the man. I know none of the attendant circumstances except such as were reported in the public press and I do not think it appropriate to attempt a re-trial of the merits of his case. But in the course of the Minister's reply to me today he saw fit to say that in sentencing the defendant to imprisonment for one month for housebreaking, the court took into account the fact that at another court the defendant had been given a suspended sentence of six months after pleading guilty to six separate charges. At another stage of the Minister's reply, he said that there were other charges outstanding against the man.

I do not think either of these questions is relevant to the fundamental question I wish to raise. The man in question appeared before the District Justice in Swords. I have no reason to apprehend that the report contained in the press was made by any other than a thoroughly responsible pressman for I do not believe the newspaper would have published it if they were not so satisfied.

According to a report from which I am reading, which appeared in the Evening Herald of Wednesday, 5th October, 1966, the Justice said that he regretted sending the man to prison for a month and added — and these words are in inverted commas—“our society caters for this sort in the same way we did a hundred years ago”. I want to avail of this House to challenge that statement. I deny it. I say that the method of dealing with cases of this kind one hundred years ago is not the method sanctioned by this Oireachtas for dealing with such cases now.

The Justice continued — and then the inverted commas are re-opened:

"This man has been very seriously ill for a considerable time and he has pleaded guilty to breaking and entering a hotel by opening an unlocked door, and stealing 10/- from one of the rooms, leaving 5/- in silver behind him. He did not touch any other property in the hotel, and the money he took was spent on food."

These words are all included in inverted commas, being the verbatim report of a responsible newspaper correspondent of a judicial person speaking from the Bench:

"The investigating officer accepts that the man needed this money for food. He has no friends or relatives, save one who lives 100 miles from here and with whom the defendant had not been in communication for two years.

"The Garda is satisfied that this man is not merely physically ill but, to some extent, mentally ill also. The state of our society"——

I want to interject. Mark these words. These are the words reported as having been uttered from the Bench:

"The state of our society does not provide for defendant."

I deny it. I would be ashamed to be a Member of this House if that were true.

An Ceann Comhairle

It seems to me that the Deputy is proceeding to re-try the case.

Mr. Dillon

Oh, no, Sir.

An Ceann Comhairle

Constitutionally, that is not allowable.

Mr. Dillon

No. I am making a case to the Minister for Justice that the time is appropriate to exercise the prerogative.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy may make a case for a release——

Mr. Dillon

Yes — the exercise of the prerogative.

An Ceann Comhairle

But the Deputy may not re-try the case. This House has no authority to do that.

Mr. Dillon

I do not want to re-try the case at all. What I am saying is that we do not deal with problems of this kind today as they were dealt with 100 years ago. For one thing, we have a sovereign parliament which represents our people and we are not living under an alien Administration.

An Ceann Comhairle

These remarks seem to me to be a comment on what the Justice said.

Mr. Dillon

Yes, but not on his judgement.

An Ceann Comhairle

——and, therefore, a re-trial of the case.

Mr. Dillon

I do not want to re-try the case. I am saying that because we are the sovereign authority, because the Minister for Justice is answerable to us and not to the British House of Commons, because there are 144 of us here, this homeless, friendless man has 144 friends, because we represent the Irish people.

Since this is evidently a case where the prerogative should be exercised and this man released from jail, I want to put the case that we cannot rest easy in this House if we believe that there is a man in jail who was mentally ill when the act complained of was perpetrated and when the sentence was passed and that, if that is the case, this man should be released. I want the Minister for Justice to say, "I am going to take this man out of jail and I shall activate the social services by calling on my colleagues the Minister for Health and the Minister for Social Welfare to lend their aid to get this man straightened out."

Let us not delude ourselves. I do not doubt that this is one of God's undeserving poor. The deserving poor are sure of sympathy from all who behold them but the undeserving poor are entitled to justice. I call the House to remember that nearly 100 years ago when somebody fired a shot at Queen Victoria and she was informed that the verdict of the court might be "not guilty because insane" she became most indignant and she got the law changed so that, if the sovereign was fired at, the proper verdict to bring in was "guilty but insane".

We are not living under Queen Victoria and I am putting it to the Minister that if there is a man of unsound mind, however undeserving, in jail for breaking and entering a house to get 10/- to buy food because he was hungry and homeless and friendless, we do not believe that the society to which we belong and over which we as Deputies of Dáil Éireann preside, this affluent society, does not cater for the likes of him. I think it does and I think a prudent Minister for Justice would intervene at this stage and say, "I propose to ask the Government to exercise the prerogative and release this man." If he is of unstable mind, we have social services to meet that contingency. If he is poor and hungry, and friendless, he has friends here. As far as the homeless aspect is concerned, we have the means to meet that contingency also. But because there are other charges outstanding against him and because he has offended in the past, that is no justification for condemning him for something he did while his mind was ill and sick.

I am going to put this. There is no one of us who might not sink into the gutter in our time. But if any one of us did sink to the level of abandonment this unfortunate man has apparently reached and was brought before the court in Swords, he would have relations and friends who would be there with counsel and solicitors and undertakings and explanations. The reason this man is in Mountjoy is that he had no friends and no relations and no one to speak for him. I do not believe that any Deputy thinks this situation should be allowed to continue. I do not believe any Deputy thinks—I do not believe the Minister thinks—that because you are poor and friendless and homeless, you should be penalised for being mentally ill and for seeking to relieve your hunger by what is undoubtedly a crime, opening a door after nightfall and going in to find the money to buy bread. I doubt very much if that is a crime in the eyes of God. I do not deny that technically it is the offence of burglary or housebreaking, depending on the hour at which it took place. But whatever offence he committed, if his mind was sick, is it appropriate that because he was poor and homeless and friendless we should shovel him into Mountjoy? If the Minister or I, which God forbid, should ever, through our own folly or misfortune, find ourselves brought low as this poor tramp apparently was, does he think it would be right when our minds were sick if we did something of this kind that we should be shovelled into Mountjoy? There is perhaps some strange good fortune in the fact that the Minister's father is sitting behind him as a Deputy of this House. I do not think he would be absent from the courthouse if it were his son who stood before the Justice. I do not think my family would be absent from the court if it were I. This man had neither friends nor relatives to speak for him. Everybody entitled to speak agreed that he was not only physically but mentally ill.

I want to be able to raise my head again and to say that here in Ireland under our own Government we do make provision not only for the deserving but for the undeserving poor. If they fall into misfortune, we have the means and the will to help them and protect them, even if necessary from themselves, while they are ill and that we do not simply shovel them into Mountjoy. I do not think that is an unreasonable request to make to the Minister. I hope after the time for reflection he has had this afternoon he will be able to reassure us that he will ask the Government to exercise the appropriate prerogative and say that this man who is friendless, homeless, lonely, hungry and sick is friendless no longer but that under our dispensation, because there is no one else to speak for him, there are 144 Deputies of this House, all of whom are his friends as they are of any other citizen who needs his fundamental rights defended.

Minister for Justice (Mr. B. Lenihan)

On many occasions Deputy Dillon is certainly to be admired in his pursuit of the interest of the individual but on this occasion I think he just has not got hold of the facts, to use a phrase. He is obviously working on newspaper reports of the particular matter. I happen to have taken a personal interest in this particular case and have, as Minister for Justice available to me, both in the form of ordinary reports and personal reports, the exact situation in regard to it. I can assure the Deputy that all the lay, medical and psychiatric advice is to the effect that this man is being very well looked after where he is. I am sure the Deputy will accept that advice. This man is under top-class medical and psychiatric care for the short period in which he will be in jail. I would say he is probably being much better looked after in that respect than he would be outside.

Mr. Dillon

But he is in jail.

Mr. B. Lenihan

I can assure the Deputy that the word "jail" which he uses in such a manner with a Victorian connotation is not the manner in which we use the term today. We happen to have evolved here under successive Governments a humane administration of justice. As far as anybody in this sort of condition in jail today is concerned, he is better off than he would be in most of the hospitals in the country and is fully catered for medically and psychiatrically.

Mr. Dillon

That is insane.

Mr. B. Lenihan

Now let us get back to the facts and away from the hysterical bluff which surrounds a lot of this matter. As far as the court was concerned, the fact of the matter was that this unfortunate man was under a suspended sentence of six months for a conviction one month before that in respect of six distinct charges of theft involving substantial sums of money. There was a history of this type of offence in the case of the man who appears, while not to be insane in the fullest medical sense, at least weakminded. This is the criminal background that was before the justice in this case. I am quite satisfied the justice did the right thing in the case.

I exercised the prerogative of mercy, to which Deputy Dillon referred, on many occasions. I take a very close personal interest perusing the files submitted to me and have regard to this right. There is a sacred obligation residing in any Minister for Justice to exercise the prerogative of mercy and terminate penalties where he sees fit or where a case is made to him by Deputies or people outside that leniency should be exercised. I do exercise it and have exercised it. I have looked at this case in a very close and personal way. I have here before me the medical report from the prison medical officer, who is a fully qualified psychiatrist. His recommendation is that this man is not a subject for treatment in a mental hospital and that he is being properly treated in a gentle and humane way while under this officer's care.

I do not believe in making hysterical outbursts about personal cases. I suggested to the Deputy earlier today when replying to his supplementary questions that this man was much better left alone. I am a reasonably humane person and I know this case personally. This man is better off where he is today under the care he is getting than he would be anywhere else in this country. These happen to be the facts.

Mr. Dillon

He is a man and you are a man——

Mr. B. Lenihan

I am quite satisfied, also, having regard to the files before me and the records of the unfortunate misconduct of this man, that the district justice had little option but to do what he did.

Mr. Dillon

He said himself that "this is the best we can do in the society in which we live".

Mr. B. Lenihan

The Deputy should not act merely on newspaper reports. He should stop bluffing and, instead, take a close personal interest in the case before he raises it in the hysterical and hypocritical manner in which he has raised it here. Not alone would he do a service to himself, to his Party and to this Parliament but he would also do a service to the unfortunate man concerned. I take a very poor view of anybody who develops this theme to the point of hypocrisy, with all due respect to Deputy Dillon, who, on many occasions, fights for individual cases on the basis of the liberty of the individual, and so on. This is a theme he often develops but, on this occasion, with all due respect to that theme, Deputy Dillon is guilty of blatant hypocrisy. If I were to interest myself in a case as a Deputy of this House, I should take care to interview the person concerned and to come here with the facts at the behest of his family and friends.

Mr. Dillon

He has no friends.

Mr. B. Lenihan

I should make my case in this House on that basis. I should not come in here in a hysterical and hypocritical manner and make the case on the basis of newspaper reports without advertence to this man's interests. Deputy Dillon is doing no service to this man's future. He is merely making use of this man's case across the floor of the House for the purpose of his own advertisement: I am afraid that that appears to be the position. I happen to have taken care in this matter. I have this man's medical record and the medical reports. I am glad to say he is making good progress. The man himself was not in a good condition, from the medical and physical point of view, largely due to his own troubles and his own wrongdoings. He is now in good care and is making very good progress. He will probably be in much better shape than he has been for a number of years as a result of the care and attention he is receiving by way of skilled medical and spiritual advice.

Mr. Coogan

What about when he comes out?

Mr. B. Lenihan

The Deputy should have enough sense to know that, in our society in Ireland in this year of 1966, that is the situation which prevails, namely, that we look after people in this condition in our prisons.

Mr. Dillon

Jail.

Mr. B. Lenihan

The Deputy is using the word "jail" in the Victorian sense and he is as outdated as Charles Dickens.

Mr. Dillon

The man is in jail.

Mr. B. Lenihan

People are looked after and are well cared for in the system which prevails. This man is better off there than anywhere else at the present time. The reports I have before me all indicate that this man is not a subject for detention in a mental hospital but is better off where he is. I hope he will emerge mentally and physically in a better state than when he went in.

Mr. Coogan

When he comes out, what will happen to him?

The Dáil adjourned at 10.55 p.m. until 10.30 a.m. on Thursday, 13th October, 1966.