(Cavan) asked the Taoiseach whether it has now become accepted practice for the Attorney General to ask for specific minimum sentences, including the suspension of driving licences, where appropriate; and, if not, why an exception was made in the case of the NFA road traffic prosecutions.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - NFA Road Traffic Prosecutions.
1.
It is not the practice of the Attorney General to ask for specific minimum sentences and this was not done in the cases referred to in the question.
(Cavan): Surely the Taoiseach must be aware that in certain of the prosecutions brought against farmers arising out of the road blockade superintendents and prosecutors demanded, or requested, that the driving licence of the people prosecuted should be suspended. Would the Taoiseach agree that that did, in fact, happen? If it did happen, is it, as he appears to admit, a complete departure from the established practice in this country, to leave the penalties to the courts within the limits prescribed by statute?
In most cases State solicitors did request the justice to suspend driving licences. The Deputy will remember that the prosecutions against the members of the NFA arose out of concerted action which gave rise to multiple offences and prosecutions and the Attorney General thought that that fact merited special consideration. In these circumstances he considered it proper to give directions to ensure that these cases were presented in a uniform way and that the attention of the court should be directed to the provisions of section 31 of the Road Traffic Act, which provides for suspension of licences in certain cases.
As the Deputy is aware, and as I think I told him last week, it is the practice for practitioners in the law courts to press their cases in the optimum way possible and whether it is on behalf of the Attorney General or on behalf of a private citizen, the justice or judge is in no way bound to accept the contention put forward on behalf of a plaintiff or prosecutor.
(Cavan): The Taoiseach will admit that it has never been the practice in this country, at least in our system of criminal law, for the prosecutor to demand a jail sentence, or to demand a specific minimum sentence such as disqualification from driving. The Attorney General has always been satisfied to let the courts know that he takes a serious view of a specific offence and to leave it to the courts to mete out punishment within the limits prescribed by statute. Will the Taoiseach agree that these prosecutions were brought weeks after an isolated demonstration by the NFA and in some cases a month after the offence was committed and that there was no repetition or threat of repetition? I suggest to the Taoiseach that he should realise that that is the sort of thing that encouraged the situation to get out of hand.
This is not a question at all.
(Cavan): Might I now suggest to the Taoiseach that, in future, prosecutions be conducted in the normal way, in accordance with tradition and precedent here?
I want to refute again emphatically that the Attorney General requested minimum sentences in these cases. I want to reiterate that he directed the attention of State solicitors to section 31 of the Road Traffic Act, for the purpose of ensuring that the cases be presented in a uniform manner. There were several hundreds of these cases. Might I again suggest to the Deputy that in his own experience he must realise it is often more than a month, and more than two months, that prosecutions are brought in the district court arising out of summary offences and that there was nothing whatever unusual about these cases; often a month or five or six weeks elapse.
The effect of what the Taoiseach says is what the Attorney General did was to create a situation in which a minimum penalty was in fact demanded: it is the same thing.
I am not accepting that at all.
(Cavan): A penalty which deprived the people concerned of earning their livelihood for months.
They put themselves into that position.