asked the Taoiseach the dates and places at which the 18 cases to which the referred on 31st May, 1967 were dealt with by the District Courts.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - NFA Dispute : District Court Cases.
1.
There is a long-established principle that, while persons coming before the courts on criminal charges have to accept the likelihood of contemporaneous publication, subsequent publicity in which they are likely to be identified is to be avoided if possible.
In the circumstances, I think the best course is to invite the Deputy to look at the daily newspapers of 6th, 10th and 17th May, where he will find reports that show that the courts have found charges proved not just against 18 members of the NFA but against roughly twice that number.
I should perhaps add that, as no doubt the Deputy is already aware, while the word "intimidation" is popularly used to describe the use of threats, whether of violence or otherwise, to force a person to do or not to do something, it is not a legal term that describes one particular offence. The appropriate charge may be one of watching and besetting a premises with a view to compelling somebody to do something or it may be unlawful assembly, or some other such charge.
Am I right in taking it that what in effect the Taoiseach is saying is that any charges brought against the NFA will be regarded by the Government as intimidation, whether or not it is intimidation as such proven in court or charged against the NFA?
I am talking about intimidation in general terms and the manner in which it is generally understood.
The Taoiseach and the Minister for Justice are both lawyers and the distinction should be apparent.
I am speaking not as a lawyer but as a member of the Government with reference to acts which are intended to compel people to act or not to act in certain circumstances.
It is perfectly clear that the Taoiseach was furnished an incorrect brief by the Minister for Justice, not for the first time, and that he genuinely believed that people have been convicted of minatory attacks whereas he now knows that the impression he gave on the last occasion is not true.
I referred in my last brief to 18 charges proved.
Not on intimidation; on the contrary, the justice said it was entirely peaceful. The Taoiseach was given a false brief by the Minister for Justice.
The Taoiseach referred to 18 cases proved in the District Court. I agree that the Taoiseach did not endeavour deliberately to mislead the House, but will he now admit that there were not, in fact, 18 cases of intimidation proven in the courts?
There were 18 cases proven of actions compelling or seeking to compel persons to act or to refrain from acting in what has been proven to be an unlawful manner. This I regard as intimidation.
It is not, either legally or generally.
Will the Taoiseach agree, for example, that unlawful picketing can be carried out in a peaceful manner without any element of compulsion or intimidation? I suggest to the Taoiseach that some of the things referred to by him were peacefully carried out.
This seems to be developing into a legal argument. Question No. 2.
This is not a legal argument. We are seeking to elicit from the Taoiseach an elaboration of the reply he gave on a previous occasion when he left the House under the impression that under the ordinary acceptance of the word "intimidation", 18 cases were proved. Would the Taoiseach agree if I ask him now that in the light of his more general view, the word "intimidation" as popularly understood, and he was speaking, as he emphasised, as a member of the Government, does not fairly describe the charges which were proven in court and to which he referred in the generic term of "intimidation"? Those who did not wish to use an illegal approach to a neighbour should be exonerated from the reflection which in the popular mind it undoubtedly has.
If the Deputy is trying to dissociate the word "intimidation" from "unlawful picketing of premises in order to deter people from going about their lawful work as citizens", then there is that distinction in the 18 cases to which I alluded on the last day here. There are other cases as well; they are included in the other cases to which I referred in my reply today.
We shall check that too.