Menu
-HOME
Baile
-DEBATES
Díospóireachtaí
-DÁIL DEBATES
Díospóireachtaí Dála
-SEANAD DEBATES
Díospóireachtaí Seanaid
-SEARCH
Cuardach
-ABOUT THIS SITE
Faoin Suíomh Seo
-LINKS
Nascanna
Previous - Lch. Roimhe Seo Up - Suas Next - Ar Aghaidh

Dáil Éireann - Volume 27 - 21 November, 1928

IN COMMITTEE ON FINANCE. - VOTE No. 26—LAW CHARGES.

Mr. BLYTHE: I move:—

Go ndeontar suim ná raghaidh thar [535] £23,492 chun slánuithe na suime is gá chun íoctha an Mhuirir a thiocfidh chun bheith iníoctha i rith na bliana dar críoch an 31adh lá de Mhárta, 1929, chun Costaisí Cóir-Phróiseacht agus Dlí-Mhuirireacha eile, maraon le Deontas i gcabhair do Chostaisí áirithe is iníoctha amach as Rátaí Aitiúla do réir Reachta.

That a sum not exceeding £23,492 be granted to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1929, for the expenses of Criminal Prosecutions and other Law Charges, including a Grant in relief of certain Expenses payable by Statute out of Local Rates.

The PRESIDENT: A question arose a few days ago which ought to have been raised on this Vote by Deputy Clery in connection with a prosecution of a Mr. Hanley of Ballina. I made inquiries and found that the State counsel was satisfied that there was not sufficient evidence to go on with that case. He consulted the Attorney-General, and they were satisfied that there was not sufficient evidence to go on with it. No influence of any sort was used either with them or with any one else in connection with the case.

Mr. RUTTLEDGE: This is only typical of a number of cases throughout the country. It is easy for the President to say that no influence was used in that case with people of that kind. I think the Attorney-General was wise not to let that case go on. The President is aware that there have been many people who hold views similar to those held by Deputies on these Benches and who were brought before juries and the juries disagreed, but then these people were kept in prison and harassed in every way, and were then afterwards found not to be guilty. It is a wonder that the State could not consider these cases beforehand as they did with the District Justice in the case I refer to. He was quite satisfied that there was not a prima facie case to go before a jury. The President knows that these cases are taken before a District [536] Justice, and in that particular case to which he refers there were witnesses from the Finance Department. If their evidence is correct, and if the Attorney-General was right in advising a nolle prosequi to be entered, perhaps we would be entitled to know what action the President has taken in regard to these officials.

The PRESIDENT: The Deputy comments as usual—nothing more.

Mr. RUTTLEDGE: The President says that I comment as usual and nothing more.

The PRESIDENT: I have had experience of the Deputy before.

Mr. G. BOLAND: We all have had experience of each other.

Mr. RUTTLEDGE: I would like to know to what the President alludes.

The PRESIDENT: On the occasion of my nomination as President, the Deputy and another Deputy on the same side brought up a charge against us, and when I answered and repudiated it the Deputy said, “If the facts are as the President states——”

Mr. BOLAND: Cad eile?

Mr. RUTTLEDGE: Quite so.

The PRESIDENT: Did the Deputy take the opportunity of inquiring whether they were so?

Mr. RUTTLEDGE: I had no opportunity of inquiring.

The PRESIDENT: Did the Deputy inquire since?

Mr. RUTTLEDGE: No, I had no opportunity.

The PRESIDENT: Charges are easily made.

Mr. RUTTLEDGE: So far as the President is concerned we are supposed to accept what he says as Gospel, but, unfortunately, we do not as a matter of fact.

The PRESIDENT: The Deputy was wise enough to accept that and not to inquire further.

[537] Mr. RUTTLEDGE: With regard to this Vote it seems that an increase of £2,000 upon last year's amount is unreasonable. There is a sum of £12,000 set aside for prosecutions. That seems to be made up of payments of expenses for prosecutions in the country. It seems to be an unreasonable amount especially when there is another item after that of £10,000 for fees paid to counsel. I take it that a big portion of that money goes to the two Prosecutors who are practically continuously in the Central Criminal Courts. Then there is an independent salary paid to the Attorney-General and the practice does not seem to be followed here which is adopted in other places by which the Attorney-General goes into court and conducts important prosecutions. Perhaps the Minister when replying would give some indication as to the work of the Attorney-General's Department and tell us why the Attorney-General himself does not conduct some of the cases in court and thus save money spent on prosecutions. There is a sum of £30,928 for State Solicitors. That would mean about an average of £600 to each State Solicitor. These solicitors are only part-time officers. They are in somewhat the same position as a sheriff who is appointed at a lower salary. I understand that these State Solicitors in Land Commission cases, when they are successful, receive their costs from the litigants and make no return to the Department. If that is so, anyone who stays an hour or so in a Circuit or District Court in the country and listens to the undefended Civil Bills at the suit of the Land Commission will realise the enormous amount of fees which go into the hands of the State Solicitors. In 99 per cent. of the cases the Land Commission are successful, and I would like to know if the fees recovered in such cases go into the hands of the Land Commission or into those of the local State Solicitor. If they go to the solicitor it means that in many cases he draws an abnormal salary, a salary much larger than most senior counsel in the courts can hope to draw.

There is an item set apart for the defence of public officials in actions [538] taken against District Justices, members of the Gárda Síochána, and other public officials for acts done by them in consequence of their duty. Perhaps the Minister would give some details as to how that is made up. If the District Justice gives a decision which is wrong, I understand that when there is a case stated or when there are certiorari proceedings, if the Supreme Court hold against him on the points submitted he is liable for the costs. I do not know if that is one of the matters provided in this sum of £400. I also want to know if, in cases where the Gárda Síochána are mentioned, the costs of defending proceedings such as those in the Waterford cases are borne by the State. In the Waterford cases, as the House will remember, acts of blackguardism were committed by the Civic Guards which you could not expect the State to stand over. I want to know whether in the case of Civic Guards found guilty of such acts of blackguardism the State steps in and pays the expenses in such proceedings. Perhaps the Minister would also explain the reason for the increase under this head and whether he contemplates any alteration in regard to the present system.

Mr. CLERY: In regard to the case mentioned at Ballina, I would like to know if Mr. Hanley has been paid his claim which was allowed.

The PRESIDENT: I could not say. The Deputy knows how to put down a question if he wants information.

Mr. CLERY: I did not intend to raise this matter, but now that it has been raised I may say that I did not state that the President had interfered in the case or that he used his influence to have the case withdrawn.

The PRESIDENT: I did not say that the Deputy did.

Mr. CLERY: The President left the impression on my mind that I said that influence had been used by the President and members of the Executive Council.

The PRESIDENT: No.

Mr. CLERY: I think that the fact that the President is anxious to wash [539] his hands of such an allegation only leaves a greater shadow.

The PRESIDENT: The Deputy is welcome to that.

Mr. CLERY: When a Deputy makes no charge and when the President jumps up and says that he did not interfere I think it shows a guilty mind.

Mr. G. BOLAND: A prima facie case.

Mr. CLERY: The President said that I charged him with interfering in the case. I did not say that, and I think if the President was wise he would have remained silent. I am, however, convinced now, from what the President said, that interference has taken place, and when he did not make inquiries as to whether this man's claim was paid I think the thing becomes much more fishy. Did he inquire what the evidence was? If he did not inquire whether Mr. Hanley had not been paid his claim I wonder how he would try to prove to us that there was not sufficient evidence to prove the charge.

The PRESIDENT: I have not tried. I would not attempt it.

Mr. CLERY: As I said on the last day, it is all right for the President and others of his Party, when they could not be challenged here, to go about the country talking about looters and robbers, but when he finds that there is a charge against a certain gentleman of trying to get £4,000 by false pretences and false sworn declarations, he has the case withdrawn afterwards and then says that he did not interfere.

AN LEAS-CHEANN COMHAIRLE: You had all this on another occasion.

Mr. CLERY: The President introduced it again and made a very foolish statement. He made a foolish man of himself altogether. After the statement he made here the last day, the people of Ballina were inclined to believe his version, but when they see this statement to-day they will be inclined to change their view. If he is anxious to show that he is not interfering he will go about it in a different [540] way altogether. That is, if he wants to convince the people of North Mayo and Ballina.

The PRESIDENT: I intervened in this case because the Attorney-General is appointed by the President of the Executive Council. He goes out with the President. To that extent I have a responsibility for him, and I might say my impression, from the investigation of this case, is that the looter's word would not be taken. That is the reason——

Mr. CLERY: The accountant sent down by the Attorney-General made a sworn statement in court that no goods over the value of £65 were taken out of Mr. Hanley's shop. Is the accountant sent down by the Government a looter, or is his word not to be considered?

AN LEAS-CHEANN COMHAIRLE: I will not hear another word about this case.

Mr. CARNEY: Might I suggest that the word of a person who mistakes “imports” for “exports,” and confuses the two, might not be taken in this case?

Mr. CLERY: Might I state that the so-called “looter” was brought forward by the State to give evidence?

Mr. G. BOLAND: I should like to ask, before the Minister concludes, whether or not the Attorney-General is bound to prosecute in the case of a Minister as in the case of an ordinary civilian for, say, contempt of court. We had a case where one of our Deputies was prosecuted. There was also the question of the Minister for Agriculture, who was guilty of gross contempt of court during the elections, and the Attorney-General did not move at all in the matter. I should like to know does his jurisdiction include members of the Executive Council.

Dr. RYAN: It does not, because the President appoints him.

Mr. BLYTHE: The Attorney-General would have been satisfied in that case that there was no contempt of court.

[541] Mr. G. BOLAND: And no undue influence.

Mr. BLYTHE: The Attorney-General could prosecute a Minister, but I think it would not be good form for him to do so. Deputy Ruttledge asked why the Attorney-General did not plead in court, and said that the Attorneys-General who were here before the change of Government did. Of course, the Attorney-General, before the change of Government, had not anything like the volume of work to attend to that the present Attorney-General has, because the Attorney-General gives general advice to the Government in connection with the preparation of legislation. That, in itself, has been a very heavy task. In connection with the constitutional position, and external relations especially, because our External Affairs Department has been very small and has only been learning its work, an enormous amount of labour has fallen on the Attorney-General. Of course, there was formerly a Solicitor-General as well as an Attorney-General and there was a division of labour, such as is not possible under a system by which we have really only one law officer. The result is that while the present Attorney-General and other Attorneys-General have themselves been anxious to plead in court, they have not found it practicable.

A Deputy asked the President a question with regard to Mr. Hanley. I looked that matter up since, and Mr. Hanley has not been paid. My Department were not satisfied that the money was owing. They conducted certain inquiries which led to a prosecution being instituted. I also made inquiries generally on the matter since the whole question was raised.

Mr. G. BOLAND: There is something in what the looter said after all.

Mr. BLYTHE: We were not satisfied that the money was owing.

Dr. RYAN: We are not either.

Mr. CARNEY: A lot of people have not been paid from your Department, especially from the Six Counties.

[542] Mr. BLYTHE: Will the Deputy allow me to proceed? I had an interview with the counsel who prosecuted for the State. I asked him about it. He said, without being spoken to by any person whatsoever, he had come to the conclusion, on examining the evidence, that there was no chance of a conviction and that, accordingly, he had represented to the Attorney-General that it was a proper case for entering a nolle prosequi. It is not customary and it is not right for the Attorney-General to proceed with a case unless he believes that there is a prospect of a conviction being obtained. In certain cases he has been mistaken, naturally, but in no case is the mere satisfaction in his own mind that there was guilt sufficient to justify him in proceeding with the case.

Mr. CLERY: Would the Minister tell us on what grounds he found out that the claim was not owing?

Mr. BLYTHE: As far as I am concerned, I am perfectly satisfied that the money was not owing.

Mr. CLERY: Therefore, the man tried to get the money under false pretences.

Mr. BLYTHE: That is another matter. I wish the Deputies would always be as willing as they are now to accept my view of the justice of the proceedings on everything that is done by the Department of Finance—the one Department that never makes a mistake—with regard to the defence of public officials.

Deputy Ruttledge asked whether it included paying costs of District Justices in case of applications for certiorari. I am not sure of that, but I would say in certain cases it might.

With regard to the police, the bulk of the sum is expended in defence of Civic Guards. The expenses of defence are only paid out of State funds when there is an acquittal, and when, in addition, the case seems to be one that merits State assistance, but in no case where a Civic Guard is convicted is money paid out of State funds.

[543] Mr. GOULDING: Did that apply in the Waterford case.

Mr. BLYTHE: I do not know what happened in the Waterford case.

Mr. GOULDING: Everyone knows.

Mr. BLYTHE: I do not. I am not from Waterford and to me it does not really loom so largely.

Mr. CARNEY: Would the Minister tell me——

AN LEAS-CHEANN COMHAIRLE: The Minister ought to be allowed to make his reply.

Mr. BLYTHE: I am not going to give way.

Mr. CARNEY: You are not from Waterford, but I was going to talk of some place that you would know better.

Mr. BLYTHE: In no case has any sum been paid out of public funds for the defence of a Civic Guard unless an acquittal was obtained and unless in addition to the acquittal the case seemed to be one that very definitely required and merited the assistance from public funds.

Mr. RUTTLEDGE: The Minister did not answer the question I raised [544] about costs with regard to the Land Commission.

Mr. BLYTHE: I understand that what the Deputy said is so. In any case State Solicitors do receive remuneration in respect of the Land Commission.

Mr. RUTTLEDGE: Would the Minister look into the matter and see what the money that is collected through that source would mean to the country if it came into the Exchequer in the ordinary way? When these State Solicitors were appointed there was no such arrangement made or inducement held out to them that money would come into their hands in this way.

Mr. BLYTHE: I will look into the matter.

Mr. CORRY: rose.

AN LEAS-CHEANN COMHAIRLE: Does Deputy Corry wish to ask a question?

Mr. CORRY: I did not know that the Minister was concluding. I was standing up but was not called on.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE resumed the Chair.

Question put.

The Committee divided: Tá, 72; Níl, 64.

Tá

Aird, William P.

Alton, Ernest Henry.

Beckett, James Walter.

Bennett, George Cecil.

Blythe, Ernest.

Bourke, Séamus A.

Brennan, Michael.

Brodrick, Seán.

Byrne, Alfred.

Byrne, John Joseph.

Carey, Edmund.

Cole, John James.

Collins-O'Driscoll, Mrs. Margt.

Conlon, Martin.

Connolly, Michael P.

Cooper, Bryan Ricco.

Cosgrave, William T.

Craig, Sir James.

Crowley, James.

Daly, John.

Davis, Michael.

De Loughrey, Peter.

Doherty, Eugene.

Dolan, James N.

Doyle, Peadar Seán.

[545]Myles, James Sproule.

Nally, Martin Michael.

Nolan, John Thomas.

O'Connell, Richard.

O'Connell, Bartholomew.

O'Donovan, Timothy Joseph.

O'Hanlon, John F.

O'Leary, Daniel.

O'Mahony, Dermot Gun.

O'Reilly, John J.

O'Sullivan, Gearoid.

Duggan, Edmund John.

Dwyer, James.

Egan, Barry M.

Esmonde, Osmond Thos. Grattan.

Fitzgerald, Desmond.

Fitzgerald-Kenney, James.

Good, John.

Haslett, Alexander.

Hennessy, Thomas.

Hennigan, John.

Henry, Mark.

Hogan, Patrick (Galway).

Holohan, Richard.

Jordan, Michael.

Keogh, Myles.

Law, Hugh Alexander.

Lynch, Finian.

Mathews, Arthur Patrick.

McDonogh, Martin.

McFadden, Michael Og.

McGilligan, Patrick.

Mongan, Joseph W.

Mulcahy, Richard.

Murphy, James E.

Murphy, Joseph Xavier.

[546]O'Sullivan, John Marcus.

Reynolds, Patrick.

Rice, Vincent.

Roddy, Martin.

Shaw, Patrick W.

Sheehy, Timothy (West Cork).

Thrift, William Edward.

Tierney, Michael.

Vaughan, Daniel.

White, Vincent Joseph.

Wolfe, Jasper Travers.

Níl

Allen, Denis.

Anthony, Richard.

Blaney, Neal.

Boland, Gerald.

Boland, Patrick.

Bourke, Daniel.

Brady, Seán.

Briscoe, Robert.

Broderick, Henry.

Buckley, Daniel.

Carney, Frank.

Carty, Frank.

Cassidy, Archie J.

Clery, Michael.

Coburn, James.

Colbert, James.

Colohan, Hugh.

Cooney, Eamon.

Corkery, Dan.

Corish, Richard.

Corry, Martin John.

Crowley, Fred. Hugh.

Crowley, Tadhg.

Derrig, Thomas.

De Valera, Eamon.

Doyle, Edward.

Fahy, Frank.

Flinn, Hugo.

Fogarty, Andrew.

French, Seán.

Gorry, Patrick J.

Goulding, John.

Hayes, Seán.

Hogan, Patrick (Clare).

Holt, Samuel.

Houlihan, Patrick.

Jordan, Stephen.

Kennedy, Michael Joseph.

Kent, William R.

Kerlin, Frank.

Killane, James Joseph.

Killilea, Mark.

Kilroy, Michael.

Lemass, Seán F.

Little, Patrick John.

Maguire, Ben.

McEllistrim, Thomas.

MacEntee, Seán.

Moore, Séamus.

Morrissey, Daniel.

Mullins, Thomas.

Murphy, Timothy Joseph.

O'Connell, Thomas J.

O'Dowd, Patrick Joseph.

O'Kelly, Seán T.

O'Reilly, Matthew.

Powell, Thomas P.

Ruttledge, Patrick J.

Ryan, James.

Sexton, Martin.

Smith, Patrick.

Tubridy, John.

Walsh, Richard.

Ward, Francis C.

Motion declared carried.

Tellers—Tá: Deputies Duggan and P.S. Doyle. Níl: Deputies G. Boland and Allen.

Previous - Lch. Roimhe Seo Up - Suas Next - Ar Aghaidh