Deputy Haughey has been given permission to put a Private Notice Question to the Minister for Justice. Will he please read the question?
Private Notice Question. - Newspaper Extradition Reports.
My question was addressed to the Taoiseach. I find it of deep significance that it has been transferred to the Minister for Justice in view of the fact that this matter was handled personally by the Taoiseach and the Attorney General who is attached to his office.
I asked Deputy Haughey to read his question.
I must make clear my disappointment about this transfer and my reading a deep significance into it. I want to ask the Taoiseach if, arising from newspaper reports stating that the extradition to Britain of a woman who has been living in Dundalk was being sought by the British authorities in connection with a series of offences in Britain, he will state whether this is so and if he will make a full statement on the matter.
, (Limerick East): In the normal course, as the Deputy will appreciate, I would not be free to say whether a warrant seeking extradition had been received by the Garda Síochána since to disclose that kind of information would obviously interfere with the effectiveness of the procedure in those cases where it was in train.
In the present instance, however, due to what I must criticise as a particularly unfortunate piece of newspaper publicity, the fact that a warrant has been received is now public knowledge. The matter is being dealt with in accordance with the normal procedures. There has been no delay on the part of the Garda Síochána, as has been publicly confirmed in London by Sir Michael Havers, Attorney General. Equally I must stress that this is not a matter in which it would be at all proper or permissible to act with such haste that fundamental legal requirements might be ignored or overlooked. What is involved is a request for the arrest of a person in one jurisdiction and her being handed over to another jurisdiction. It would be quite improper to treat that situation otherwise than in a formal way that reflects the nature of what is involved and a due respect for the rights of all concerned. Beyond that I do not think I ought to go since obviously if the warrants are executed it must be taken as probable, and it is certainly possible, that there will be litigation.
I am afraid I cannot accept that the article in The Sunday Times did nothing more than suggest that there were worries in British circles about possible difficulties here. The tone and thrust of the article clearly conveyed the impression that there was an unjustifiable delay and an unwillingness on our side to operate the normal procedures. There was a scarcely veiled suggestion that we were inventing difficulties. For instance, there was a reference to the Garda Síochána rejecting warrants because of undisclosed errors, the word “errors” being placed within quotation marks as if they were simply being invented or put forward as excuses. Elsewhere there was a reference to frustrating bureaucratic delays as if adherence to legal requirements was something that we ought not to bother about. There was also a very clear suggestion that a person may be handed over to another jurisdiction for the purpose of being questioned. That suggestion is totally misconceived. Neither can I accept the excuse that the person concerned had, according to reports, already left her home at the time of publication. Even if that is true, and I do not know whether it is, it is irrelevant. There is all the difference in the world between what would at most be a rumour that a warrant might exist and a public disclosure that it does exist. That is the situation and reflects the damage this publication has done.
Would the Minister be prepared to agree with me that prima facie the editor of The Sunday Times seemed to have acted with a reasonable sense of responsibility in so far as he delayed publishing the story for a period of three weeks, that he telephoned the Irish Embassy and, in his own words cleared the story at the highest level with the British Government? Would the Minister further agree with me that this would seem to clearly indicate, whatever about the validity of the story as a story, that it was given to The Sunday Times by somebody in Britain of the highest authority, possibly the Attorney General himself?
(Limerick East): The only advance notice the Irish authorities had about the publication of this story was the telephone call by a reporter working for The Sunday Times to an officer working for the Irish Embassy in London on the afternoon of 9 November in which the reporter said he was willing to entertain any request which might be made to delay or withhold publication. Before an opportunity had been given to respond to the statement, the same reporter made a further telephone call at 9 a.m. on 10 November in the course of which he said that the editor had taken a definite decision to proceed with publication. Consequently, I could not agree with the first part of Deputy Haughey's supplementary.
On the second part of his supplementary which speculates about the source of the information to The Sunday Times, I do not know who the source was, but I am confident it did not come from this side of the Irish Sea because there could be no possible benefit to anybody on this side of the Irish Sea for divulging such information. I understand the people attached to The Sunday Times said their source was a London police source.
Would the Minister agree that whatever view he may take, about the telephone call, it did contain a certain degree of friendly responsibility by the editor of The Sunday Times who took the trouble to telephone the Irish Embassy before publishing this story? Furthermore, would he care to comment on the very clear and specific statement by the editor of The Sunday Times, whose word we have no reason to doubt in this matter, that — and I quote —“it was cleared at the highest level in the British Government”?
I should prefer that the Taoiseach would answer those questions because obviously he would have better knowledge of all this than the Minister has. Would the Minister agree that all the indications are that this story was planted in The Sunday Times by someone high up in British Government circles, probably the Attorney General, for whatever motive he may have had in mind?
Deputies
Hear, hear.
(Limerick East): It was obviously a friendly gesture on the part of the Editor of The Sunday Times to phone the Embassy and give advance notice of intent——
He got no reply. The embassy did not do anything.
(Limerick East):——but not to follow through with the particular offer, to withdraw it at 10 a.m. the following morning, indicated that whatever the resolve may have been on Friday it had weakened considerably by Saturday morning. I have answered already the question as to speculation on the source of the story. I have no information on that other than what I have given but of its very nature the story appeared to me to be incompetent in so far as it displayed a very weak knowledge of the law of extradition. There were basic errors in the story which anyone with even a passing acquaintence with extradition law would spot. I find it difficult to understand how such mistakes could be made particularly the one suggesting that it would be international practice to extradite people for questioning. That is an outrageous suggestion. It would not be, and is not, entertained by any sovereign government.
I would prefer if the Minister would confirm what I said on Sunday about the validity of extraditing for questioning. Would the Minister make it clear that in this case there was no question of a certain person being extradited for the purposes of questioning, something that all British newspapers, not only The Sunday Times, have adverted to? Has the Minister satisfied himself that the proper procedures in this case have been followed to date, that a charge has been sworn against the person concerned, that it is clear that if the person is to be extradited, it is to face a charge and not in respect of questioning?
(Limerick East): The law which governs our extradition proceedings is the Extradition Act, 1965. That legislation was introduced by Deputy. Lenihan following earlier legislation which was introduced by Deputy Haughey in 1963. The 1963 legislation was replaced subsequently by the legislation introduced by Deputy Lenihan consequent on certain court decisions. As the Deputy is aware, our extradition law does not require the establishment of a prima facie case. The procedure is that a warrant which has been sworn is sent from one police force to another. Certain procedures are then followed.
The Minister is not answering the question I asked. I am aware of prima facie cases not having to be established but has the Minister satisfied himself that in this case an affidavit was sworn to the effect that the person concerned would face a charge in the British courts and was not being extradited purely for questioning?
(Limerick East): The normal procedure was followed. That procedure is still being followed and the Garda hope to exercise the warrant here. As an extradition warrant here does not require the establishment of a prima facie case, the authorities here, after certain procedures have been followed, act on the warrant.
The Minister has not yet answered my question. He is well aware that the proper procedure in these cases is for the British police to go before a magistrate on the basis of an affidavit and to establish that a charge is being brought against a certain person. Was that position followed in this case and if so, what were the charges in the affidavit as put before the British magistrate?
(Limerick East): My understanding is that such a procedure was followed and that in the normal course of events a warrant was advanced here. I understand that normal procedure was being followed when the story was published in The Sunday Times. If Deputy Haughey is suggesting that there is any question of extraditing people for questioning, I can assure him that there can be no question of that happening. A person can be extradited only in respect of a charge.
Surely at this stage the Minister is fully aware of the procedure followed by the British police but he continues to tell me what his understanding is. Did the British police follow the proper procedure in this case and go before a magistrate in Britain by way of affidavit indicating that the person concerned was to be charged with a particular offence before the British courts and, if so, what was the offence?
(Limerick East): All I am saying is that the proper procedure was followed and that there was no question of a person being extradited for questioning. The extradition was to be in respect of a charge.
Are the Government accepting the statement of the editor of The Sunday Times that this story was cleared at the highest level in the British Government and, if they are accepting that story, can the Minister give his idea of why such an action was taken by the British Government? Had it anything to do with the forthcoming Summit? Was it to create a security atmosphere for that occasion or what does the Minister think was the purpose of the high authority in the British Government planting the story in the newspaper?
(Limerick East): I have no intention of speculating on the source of the story or on the motives of those who provided it. I have said already that people in The Sunday Times have suggested that their story came from a senior Scotland Yard source but I would draw the Deputy's attention again to what Sir Michael Havers said in the statement he issued in London. I presume that as Attorney General he is regarded as a high source in the British Government. Speaking on behalf of that Government he said that there is no truth in the allegation that the Garda have refused to arrest a named person, that an extradition warrant in respect of Evelyn Glenholmes was transmitted in due form to the Garda on Wednesday last after some earlier communications, that processing of such warrants takes some time due to the vital importance of ensuring that there is no deficiency or loophole that could vitiate the process and that he was satisfied that any suggestion of undue delay by the Irish authorities in processing the application was without foundation. He said he was satisfied also that allegations of any political involvement in the process in Dublin, implicit in the reference to alleged Irish political difficulties and to the matter being in the hands of Irish politicians, are false. He is the only high British political source on the record in this matter and he is now on the record of this House.
I will allow Deputy Haughey one more supplementary.
The Minister is not answering my specific question. What he is not saying is much more eloquent than what he is saying. Again, I deplore the fact that the Taoiseach is not answering these questions because he could tell us first-hand whether he believes that the story emanated from the British Attorney General. Does the Minister share with me a very real feeling of resentment that the statement by the British Attorney General in the House of Commons regarding our Garda behaving with impeccability intimated that in some way there was residing in him some authority either to approve or disapprove of what our Garda do when we know that in this, as in all other matters, they comply fully with the law?
(Limerick East): I think the British Attorney General meant to compliment the efficiency of the Garda but it is part of our national inferiority complex to misconstrue compliments and to regard them as insults.
Deputies
Hear, hear.
A patronising pat on the head.