Deputy Tunney has been given permission to raise on the Adjournment the matter of the release from prison of an individual who recently was given a sentence of 12 months for the theft of £6 worth of butter. Criticism of the judge concerned or of the judgment itself will not be in order.
Adjournment Debate. - Butter Theft Sentence.
I thank the Ceann Comhairle for granting me permission to raise on the Adjournment this very important matter. I wish also to record my gratitude to the Minister for Justice for the sympathetic ear he extended to me this afternoon when I discussed with him details of this travesty of justice.
In its wisdom the House has arranged that in matters connected with the law and justice there is a final court of appeal — the Minister for Justice. From my knowledge of the administration of laws in the courts, I would have greater confidence in the reasonableness and in the sense of justice of any politician or of any Minister than I would have in some of those ladies and gentlemen with whom rests the responsibility of pronouncing sentences.
Before revealing the details of the case in question I would express the hope that in trying to get through to the heart of the Minister, I would not do anything that might prejudice my case, though on my own account, I could not care less.
In a court case in 1980 a citizen of this country was found guilty of the charge of which he was accused and in the opinion of the learned District Court judge the penalty considered appropriate was a £10 fine. There were two people involved in the offence and the co-accused was given the benefit of the Probation Act. On the advice of his legal representatives, the gentleman on whose behalf I speak decided to take his case to the Circuit Court with a view to having the penalty of £10 removed and thereby be enabled to return to his place of employment. Naturally, my friend who had never been before the court up to the time of this case and who like many of our people live in awe and misunderstanding of our courts and of what are known as law and justice took the advice given to him. Subsequently, he found himself before another court. Unfortunately in the Circuit Court in the matter of appeals that one ear of sanity and reasonableness, a jury, is not allowed. Therefore, my friend found himself before one learned Circuit Court judge. I do not understand why I should be precluded from attacking that gentleman, but in deference to the permission granted me in the matter of raising this question, I will abide by the conditions laid down. However, there will be other opportunities. Indeed, during the Second Reading of the Criminal Justice Bill I referred to this case but without identifying it.
The situation is that my friend who was never before in any kind of trouble and who would admit that he was guilty of the misdemeanour which led him to court in the first place found himself before one who is presumed to be a more sympathetic and more learned judge. In respect of a charge of having co-operated in the stealing of eight pounds of butter valued at £6, this learned judge, on his interpretation of the law and indeed the wishes of legislators, decided that the man was guilty of an offence which warranted his being confined in Mountjoy Prison for 12 months. That must be the greatest contribution that can be made towards the subversion of law and justice. It is much greater than are other examples which are often put before us. How can we expect the man in question, his family, his neighbours or anyone who is familiar with the case to have the confidence and respect that we would all like them to have in our law-and-order process? Despite all the expertise, the sensitivity, the knowledge, the psychology and so on with which the judge is supposed to be endowed, he considered a sentence of this magnitude to be warranted.
I do not wish to bring other matters into the debate, but all of us here know that there are walking the streets of Dublin and of every town in the country people who are guilty of the most serious offences but who for one reason or another are not in prison. Sometimes we are told that there is no room for them in the prisons. Apart from other considerations the Circuit Court judge in the case in question ordered that the man be taken immediately to Mountjoy. That order was complied with and my friend served three weeks in prison. His legal advisers told him then that there was another case due to be heard before the High Court, the case which involved two unfortunate members of the Garda who were said to have suffered at the hands of a judge — I do not know if it was the same judge — and that he, too, should appeal. Pending the appeal my friend was released from custody. Since the appeal was heard in early 1981 that man has had reminders from the Garda about the warrant that was issued for his arrest. He has had visits from the Garda to his house, with the result that he had become almost a nervous wreck, as had his wife also. Their children were mindful of the unease in the house though the parents tried to keep the details from them. This man was so distraught that he came to me before Christmas last and asked that I make representations to have him taken to Mountjoy if that was necessary to have removed from him the sentence that was hanging over him, which prevented him going about his normal daily work and from carrying out his duties as a husband and father. It was his extraordinary request that prompted me to raise the matter on the Second Stage of the Criminal Justice Bill. If that man were a hardened criminal he would not have been so sensitive to any of these considerations, but this was the first occasion on which he had found himself at the mercy of our legal system and of those who are charged with dispensing justice in a way that would appeal to a normal individual.
On Friday morning last while helping to prepare his children for school, the man was visited by five members of the Garda. They surrounded his house. This number of gardaí was as many as had tried to locate three men in another part of the country who were believed to have committed murder. The same number surrounded this man's house even though he had already intimated to me, and I had conveyed his wishes to the Garda, that he was anxious to get this matter off his mind and out of the way. Notwithstanding understandable appeals from his wife that he should not be removed from the house in front of his family, the gardaí, in deference to the duties imposed on them, snatched that man from his wife and children and he is now in Mountjoy.
In all my time I have never come across such a miscarriage of justice and I appeal to the Minister, through his Minister of State, to release the man in question forthwith. This man has already served three weeks and, as far as I am concerned, that is more than adequate for someone who has been a partner to the stealing of £6 worth of goods. His contribution was £3 and he has served a week for every £1. To my mind that is more than adequate. If someone is advised by his or her legal adviser to take a case to the Circuit Court that must not be interpreted as putting that person in danger. From inquiries I have made I understand it is well known that if a case is brought to the Circuit Court instead of those learned ladies or gentlemen being happy to be in a position to adjudicate on such cases there is a resentment about it. They are endeavouring to establish the situation where it will become known that a person who comes before them does so under the peril of having his sentence increased. That happened in this case from a fine of £10 to 12 months in Mountjoy.
Our Constitution talks about respect for family life. Where is it in the mind or heart of that Circuit Court judge? A colleague of that gentleman recently released a foreigner who was carrying with him heroin to the value of £74,000. In the opinion of the judge that man was released because he had a wife and children to whom he could go, even though they were in another country. Here an Irishman who was charged with stealing goods to the value of £3, who has a wife and three children, gets no consideration whatever.
I do not want to prejudice my case here. My sole reason for raising the matter on the Adjournment was to address myself as convincingly as possible to the Minister so that he would exercise his right, and indeed his obligation, to have justice done in circumstances where it is obvious there has been an interpretation of law and justice that appears alien and unacceptable to any normal man. I ask the Minister to do that for the sake of the man, his wife and family. Secondly, I ask him to do it to ensure that this House and the great houses that accommodate the gowned men and the men with the wigs do not make a laughing stock of the law. In my opinion the gentleman who gave that sentence is not fit to adjudicate on the troubles of people and is not fit to interpret what goes through our House. I see from the Leas Cheann-Comhairle a sign that I might be accused of making an attack on the man in question, but we cannot ignore what has happened.
Apart from the man and family who have suffered, we must realise we have reached a stage where we will have to apply ourselves to eradicating from that rotten system the opportunity it gives to people to misinterpret their responsibilities and duties to the point where an innocent person has been incarcerated in Mountjoy. We have in Ireland — and I am a party to them — various organisations and groups who concern themselves with human rights, human rights that affect people in South Africa, Ecuador, in Russia, people from whom freedom has been taken. I make no apologies for being rather parochial in my approach. My first concern is for my immediate neighbour and for Irish people. If this happened in another country we would have people in Ireland lobbying about it, who would be concerned that such an injustice had been inflicted on any human being.
When the Minister of State is replying I hope she will not reply from an institutional brief that will attempt to protect what in the past was deserving of protection. I hope she will not speak from a brief that will require of her to defend the indefensible. In my conversation with her Minister today I thought I detected some sympathy. I knew he could not pronounce judgement immediately on the facts as given to me but I assure the House that all the facts I have given are in perfect accord with the details of this case.
In brief, a man was charged and brought before the courts in 1980. He was fined £10, was encouraged to appeal and he did so. He appeared before the Circuit Court and was sentenced to 12 months. He served three weeks, was released to go on appeal to the higher court and that appeal was lost. Since 1982 this sentence has been hanging over him. In my opinion any Minister for Justice not prepared to exercise the duty and responsibility he has in a matter like this will not be acting in accordance with the wishes of this House. I hope he will not feel it incumbent on him to defend what is obnoxious, unacceptable and unwelcome and which has already brought to a family such trauma and unease with regard to what I would regard as justice. Instead of considering releasing this man, we should more appropriately be concerned with extending to him our sympathy, sorrow and disappointment that he has been the victim of such a foul decision.
The Minister of State has ten minutes to conclude.
It falls on me to respond to Deputy Tunney's contribution. I understand him to be motivated by concern with and interest in fairness. I should like to assure him that there is certainly sympathy and consideration on the part of the Minister and myself.
The man in question, however, has been arrested and lodged in prison on foot of a court order. The Deputy is free to consider that the verdict of the Circuit Court in the case was inappropriate, but it is for the courts to determine the severity of sentences in accordance with law.
The Deputy appears to consider that there is an obligation on the Minister, in relation to the case to defend his not using the powers conferred on him by law in order to release prisoners before the duration date of sentences passed on them by the courts. I do not accept that there is any such obligation, and think that previous Ministers for Justice would agree. The power is a discretionary one, and I do not think that it would be in anyone's interest if the Minister for Justice had to argue the toss about the length of time each and every prisoner should actually spend in prison. The Deputy can be assured, however, that power of release is exercised responsibly and as fairly as possible.
The Deputy will also be aware that, owing to pressure on prison accommodation, many low-risk prisoners are benefiting from early release nowadays, and I think it may be assumed that the prisoner referred to by the Deputy may have his case considered fairly soon.
Is it permissible on the Adjournment Debate to ask one question?
One question on the Adjournment.
I am thankful to the Minister of State, but am very disappointed. This is not the normal case. Naturally, I accept that the Minister may use his discretion, but the circumstances of this case should be quite obvious. Would the Minister not accept that this case is one which cries out for employment of the Minister's discretion on the facts, not on what some defenders of the indefensible might ask in this House? In respect of the details of this case, is the Minister of the opinion that this is a normal case for the exercise of this discretion?
It would be inappropriate of me to comment any further on what I have said. I can just repeat the final sentence of the statement. There are low-risk prisoners who are benefiting from early release nowadays and I think it can be assumed that the case of the prisoner in question will be considered fairly soon.
And the Minister will let me know next week.
The Dáil adjourned at 9 p.m. until 10.30 a.m. on Wednesday, 1 February 1984.