Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Tuesday, 16 Nov 1971

Vol. 256 No. 11

Adjournment Debate: Treatment of Internee.

Mr. Cluskey

The matter I wish to discuss is the detention in Crumlin Road Jail, Belfast, of a constituent of mine, Mr. Michael Murphy. This case has already been fairly widely reported in the Press but I should like to tell the House a little of the background of Mr. Murphy.

Mr. Murphy is a single man living at Loreto Road, off Cork Street, in Dublin. He decided on 16th October to visit Belfast with a view to meeting some friends and he went to Belfast on the 2.30 p.m. train on that Saturday afternoon. One might wonder as to the wisdom of a person in the present circumstances going to Belfast on a social visit. It is a legitimate question and it puzzled me when I first became aware of this case. It would be worthwhile to give the House a brief description of Mr. Murphy.

He is 33 years of age and to my mind he typifies the finest type of Dublin person. He is a quiet, non-aggressive, hard-working man who earns a reasonably good income as a panel-beater. The reason Mr. Murphy went to Belfast—and this is the custom with a considerable number of Dublin men who are single and who earn reasonably good wages —is that he spends his weekends visiting various parts of the country. When I visited him at Crumlin Road Jail and asked him why he went to Belfast he told me he had been to Cobh the previous weekend and that when he left home on the weekend in question he was not sure whether he would go to Wexford or Belfast, as it was his custom to go somewhere on his free weekends. This is to clear up a point some people have mentioned to me since this matter was raised.

The main point is that Mr. Murphy, in the company of a friend in Belfast, was arrested by four British soldiers, taken into custody and, while in custody, was subjected to the most brutal treatment. I see in this evening's Evening Herald reference to the Compton Report; the heading states: “Men were ill-treated but no brutality.” I do not know how some people would define brutality but I have here a signed statement by Mr. Murphy witnessed by his solicitor Mr. Christopher Napier of Donegall Square, Belfast. I shall read some extracts from the statement. It states:

After that they put paper about the collar of my shirt. They said that there was paraffin oil on the paper and that they were going to put a match to it. It was there for 15 minutes. Then they took it away. They never set it on fire.

The statement continues:

I got tea from these military police then. When I drank the tea I started to see images on the wall. It was about five to ten minutes after the tea. The heads of dogs, stagecoaches and peculiar looking horses menaced me. I asked could I turn around. I was refused. I was made stand up again on my toes, fingers to the wall and was beaten around the back of my body with fists and batons and I was kicked.

It is further stated:

Then I was put back on the chair. One of them took out a revolver. He showed me the bullet and he showed me the cylinder with one bullet in it. The other spaces were empty. He closed the gun and put it to my head.

It clicked. "Not this time" said he. It clicked again. All of a sudden there was a big bang. This went on for a long time. Nine times the gun was discharged. I am not sure if it was live ammunition as I only saw the back end of the bullet.

Then they put a green sack over my head. After this others came in. I am not sure if they were military or not. They said "Take him out in front of the firing squad. It is useless talking to this fellow".

It probably sounds like a ham radio programme but it did not sound like that to Mr. Murphy. Mr. Murphy had been kicked and beaten over a period of 48 hours. He is a native and resident of this city.

The matter of this man's detention appeared in the newspapers on a number of occasions. As a result of information I received and the fact that he is a constituent of mine, I made arrangements through Mr. Paddy Devlin, MP, in Belfast to try to secure some aid for this man, who, apparently, up to very recently, had been disowned by his own Government. As a result of this conversation with Mr. Devlin a solicitor, Mr. Napier, was secured and it was arranged also for a doctor to examine Mr. Murphy. However, the doctor was not able to get into the prison for the purpose of examining this man until six or seven days after the injuries had been inflicted on him but the certificate which I produced here last Thursday, and which I can produce again now, confirms that even after that length of time, Mr. Murphy's person still showed signs of the injuries that had been inflicted.

On Tuesday last I arranged to go to Belfast to see Mr. Murphy and in fairness I must say that when I contacted the British Embassy here they, without much loss of time and with the utmost courtesy, arranged for that visit to take place. I spoke to Mr. Napier and I spoke also to the doctor who issued the certificate that I can produce. I spoke, too, to Mr. Murphy and I ascertained beyond all question of doubt that the details of the injuries as described in the doctor's statement are absolutely true. I am prepared to stake my whole political future not only on that fact but also on the fact that Mr. Murphy has not been in any way engaged in illegal activity of any kind.

Although this man had been dragged off the streets of Belfast, he having committed no crime and although he was subjected by people who obviously have sick minds to the most brutal form of treatment that can be described only as sadistic, no action or no representation was made on his behalf by this Government. The man's solicitor, having visited Mr. Murphy and taken a statement from him, wrote to the Department of Foreign Affairs on 2nd November describing the circumstances in which Mr. Murphy found himself and asking that the matter be brought before the Court of Human Rights. The only reply Mr. Napier received to that letter was to the effect that he should secure a sworn affidavit from Mr. Murphy. He wrote again to the Department and quite rightly asked them if they had any suggestions to make as to how he could secure a sworn affidavit from a man who was detained in Crumlin Road Jail. Let us note that that is not the important issue here. The important issue is that although the Department of Foreign Affairs had been made aware officially of the circumstances in which a citizen of this country, an inhabitant of this city, was detained in Crumlin Road Jail and of the treatment to which he was subjected, they refused to accept any responsibility whatsoever for that man. If I, not as a TD but as Frank Cluskey, a citizen of this country, were to go to, say, France or Spain, or any other country in Europe, and to find myself in conflict with the law even through an illegal act of mine, the Irish Embassy in the country concerned, or a representative of the Irish Government in that country, would at least inquire about the initial reason for my detention, what charges were being brought against me and in what circumstances and conditions I was being detained, but the man we are concerned with here, who committed no crime and who has done nothing illegal, but who has been detained in prison and subjected to the most brutal treatment was not only ignored by the Government but the implication was that this Government were not prepared to accept any responsibility whatsoever for him.

I find it very difficult not to be emotional about this case. Yesterday while listening to a news bulletin on the radio I heard that the British Army had announced the arrest of eight men in a swoop in Belfast. My immediate reaction to that was: "God help those eight men particularly for the first 48 hours of their detention." While I have had the opportunity of discussing detention with only one man who was detained, I have no doubt that hundreds of others were subjected to the same sort of treatment. Not only were there no representations made but I doubt whether this Government know the names or indeed the total number of people who are subject to detention or internment in the Six Counties.

In reply to a question tabled by me today, the Taoiseach deliberately told a falschood to this House.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy may not use the expression that a falsehood was deliberately told to the House.

Mr. Cluskey

I withdraw "falsehood" and say that the Taoiseach deliberately misled the House.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy may not use that disorderly expression. He will withdraw it.

Mr. Cluskey

I understand that the word "falsehood"——

An Ceann Comhairle

There can be no argument on this.

Mr. Cluskey

It is not my intention to argue but my understanding is that the words "falsehood" and "misled" are parliamentary and are acceptable.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy used the word "deliberately" which makes it disorderly.

Mr. Cluskey

I will withdraw the word "deliberately" and let the people judge for themselves. The Taoiseach told a falsehood to this House in replying to me today. We all know that every word the Taoiseach utters has to be examined very carefully because it can have very many meanings but this particular word can have only one meaning and it can be used only to mislead. In replying to Question No. 1 on today's Order Paper, the Taoiseach said and I quote:

The case mentioned by the Deputy is one of those which have been under investigation.

I find this extraordinary. How can a case be under investigation with a view to sending it to the Court of Human Rights or the European Commission on Human Rights when no one has even tried to ascertain the circumstances in which this man was arrested and when no effort was made by this Government until last Friday the 12th?

The Taoiseach's reply to a question by me today stated that the Department of Foreign Affairs have been in touch with the solicitor involved, that they have written to him and that they have also sent a representative to Belfast to interview people. The Taoiseach was asked could he say when the representative from the Department of Foreign Affairs went to Belfast and also when the Department of Foreign Affairs contacted Mr. Murphy's solicitor. The Taoiseach replied that an officer of the Department was in Belfast on the 12th. Was it the 12th July that he meant to imply? He was asked, fortunately, by Deputy FitzGerald was it the 12th November and the Taoiseach replied: "Yes."

The Taoiseach

I had no intention of not disclosing the month, of course.

Mr. Cluskey

That is just as well. Mr. Murphy's case has been appearing in the Press for approximately three weeks. Mr. Murphy's solicitor wrote to the Department of Foreign Affairs on 2nd November. Yet we are now told by the Taoiseach in reply to a direct question today that this is one of the cases that have been under investigation. Nothing has happened. Mr. Murphy was not contcted. Mr. Murphy's solicitor was not contacted. Mr. Murphy's family were not contacted. They live approximately one mile from where we are sitting now. Nothing happened until last Friday, the day after I raised this question in this House in, I accept, an unorthodox manner. Surely the smallest crime in this whole sorry mess is my lack of orthodox behaviour under the rules of this House.

It would appear that for some strange reason there is a deliberate policy by the Government to give no offence whatsoever to the British Government. I do not want to over-state this case. I say this with all sincerity. I understand the difficult situation in which the Taoiscach must find himself on many aspects of the sorry mess in Northern Ireland. I cannot—and I doubt if the Irish people will—accept that when the plight of a citizen of this State has been brought to the attention of the Government no effort is made, no representations, no queries, no questions, but the appearance——

An Ceann Comhairle

I must now call on the Taoiseach to conclude.

Mr. Cluskey

I cannot accept this type of behaviour towards citizens of this State.

The Taoiseach

I want to start off by saying that I refute entirely what Deputy Cluskey has alleged against me, that I deliberately misled the House today in a written parliamentary reply. I want to repeat that the case of Mr. Murphy is one of the cases which have been under investigations. Deputy Cluskey mentioned a date, 2nd November, as the first date on which a letter was written by the solicitor of this detainee to the Department of Foreign Affairs. That is incorrect. I could just as easily accuse Deputy Cluskey of misleading the House but I will give the dates in a few minutes.

Mr. Cluskey

I am glad the Taoiseach has ascertained it. Up to this afternoon apparently he had not.

The Taoiseach

That is true. I have advised the House on a number of occasions of the Government's view in relation to the introduction of one-sided internment in the North of Ireland in the circumstances that exist there. Indeed, the attempt to bolster up the Stormont regime through measures of this kind is so objectionable and so contrary to the expressed intentions of the British Government in regard to the rights, political or otherwise, of the minority and so incapable of doing anything other than worsening the situation in the North, that this Government called for the removal of the Stormont regime shortly after internment was introduced in the North. We called for the replacement of that regime by a new form of administration.

The same demand has been made by the elected representatives of the minority in the North and, indeed, the minority themselves have manifestly demonstrated their refusal to further acquiesce in a Unionist Government or, indeed, in the system of administration of that Government. Furthermore, opinion in Britain of the most serious and responsible kind is steadily coming around to the view that the Stormont experiment is a failure and that a fresh start must be made both in the North and in terms of the future destiny of this country as a whole. It is the Government's intention to continue to express these points of view and to use every available legitimate means, political and diplomatic, to obtain the desired result. I believe this to be the view also not only of the vast majority of Deputies in this House but of every Deputy.

So far as taking specific action in individual cases is concerned, the Government have decided against this for a number of reasons. This, I think, is pertinent to the complaint made by Deputy Cluskey. The first and most important reason is the one I have just mentioned, that is, that the essential thing is to remove the regime which obviously can survive only on the repression of the minority. The departure of internment is clearly allied to the departure of the present form of Government in the North.

There are other reasons which are also cogent. They include the fact that to make representations in the cases which have been brought to attention individually could be an unfair procedure. Some people are unable, and for that matter some are unwilling, to have their cases brought to attention individually. They could be left in an inferior position and it would be possible for some people to draw the inference that we were, in fact, condoning internment in those cases which were left unmentioned, or, perhaps, we could be accused of deciding that internment was justified in those cases.

I do not think the House would hold with that opinion or hold with that point of view. I am sure we would all agree that an injustice would be done in giving preference to one case above another, to the case in which the internee or the detainee did not bring his case to notice as against the internee or detainee who, as in the case of Mr. Murphy, was fortunate enough to have a Deputy in this House to expose the facts of his case.

In this respect it must be remembered that nobody who has been detained or interned has been charged or tried because he committed any offence. To suggest, therefore, that one case might be more deserving than another is to impose judgment on men none of whom will receive a proper judgment in present circumstances.

There is the additional point, and it is this, that as far as we know, all the internees or detainees are Irishmen, are Irish citizens, and our law on citizenship does not differentiate between the rights of citizens, and quite rightly, in the present situation especially.

I have already told the House on a number of occasions that investigations into these cases of detainees and internees were in progress and have been for some months, investigations in regard to allegations of torture, brutality and, in those unfortunate cases who never had a chance of being interned, deprivation of life itself, by the security forces in the North and I want to repeat that these investigations are continuing and I want to repeat again that Mr. Murphy's case is one of these.

Deputy Cluskey mentioned in relation to Mr. Murphy that he went quite innocently to the North of Ireland on a weekend visit. I accept entirely what Deputy Cluskey has said. I have no reason whatever to impute any other motive to Mr. Murphy than that he went there innocently and to visit friends if he had friends there and certainly with no evil or subversive intent. But I want to say to the Deputy that we heard about it much before the 2nd November and action was taken immediately, but I would like the House to understand that an investigation of this kind calls for a degree of co-operation from persons who are themselves under much stress and considerable pressure. Many of these people have displayed considerable moral courage, have displayed resource and skill in compiling the necessary evidence and it would be obviously unfair of me to reveal their identities and I do not propose to do so. There is already sufficient evidence that men are interned without trial for no apparent reason and evidence that men have been subjected to torture and brutality in the process. We should not, even inadvertently, by naming people with whom we have that contact in our investigations, put them into jeopardy in an area where such terrible things are capable of happening to them.

We have correspondence, and I want to say to Deputy Cluskey it was not on 2nd November but rather on 25th October that the first letter was received from the solicitor, Mr. Napier, solicitor for Mr. Murphy. That was replied to on 27th October, in a letter looking for more information, looking for a medical certificate if that was available and any affidavit Mr. Murphy may have made. There was no direction in that to procure an affidavit, but a request seeking a copy of any affidavit he may have made. The solicitor replied again on 29th October and following certain inquiries, and studies having been made here, the reply was sent back to Mr. Napier on 10th November, immediately following which an officer of the Department was sent to the North to interview Mr. Napier. I am sure that if Deputy Cluskey again checks with the solicitor involved he will find that that solicitor does not share the view, and would not be party to the remarks made by Deputy Cluskey, about the work in which the Department of Foreign Affairs are at present engaged or about the manner in which they have co-operated with Mr. Napier.

Mr. Cluskey

I spoke to the solicitor and he definitely shared the view on the 9th of this month when I spoke to him. Make no mistake.

The Taoiseach

I am talking about an interview on 12th November.

Mr. Cluskey

That was after the thing was exposed here.

The Taoiseach

I am saying that as a result of that interview I am satisfied the solicitor involved was satisfied with the manner in which the Department were handling the situation.

Brutality and tortures have been mentioned in this case as well and, as we all know, the Compton Report was published this afternoon. I received a copy of it this afternoon. It contains about 75 pages in all and I have had a chance only of a preliminary reading of it. I have been asked for some comment and I think I can make comment here because it would be appropriate.

The facts set down in the Compton Report together with the investigations which have been made and are being made by the Government provide very substantial evidence of a very grave state of affairs in the administration of justice in the North. The Government will now examine very closely the Compton Report in conjunction with the results of our own investigations with a view to deciding whether recourse will be had to the European Commission of Human Rights.

The Dáil adjourned at 8.55 p.m. until 10.30 a.m. on Wednesday, 17th November, 1971.