The Gazette 1973

tendent to state his belief and have that belief admis- sible as evidence that a person was at a material time a member of an unlawful organisation. Much has been said about the shifting of the burden of proof in this provision in that it must cast a burden on the accused to negative the effect of the expression of such belief by a Chief Superintendent. There is nowhere a pro- vision that the belief must be reasonable or that evidence to substantiate that belief must be forthcoming. It would be possible for a Chief Superintendent to state that "in the interests of the security of the state" he was claiming privilege as to his sources for this belief. Another point which emerged in the Senate debate was that this section was further aggravated by the method of appointment of Superintendents. Under the Garda Siochana Act of 1924 Superintendents and all ranks above Superintendent are appointed not by examination or interview and not by an independent police authority but by the Government. This contrasts with the method of appointment of senior police officers in Britain and Northern Ireland, where all such promotions are made by the appropriate police autho- rity, except in the London Metropolitan Police area where the appointing authority is the Home Secretary. In other words the Court would be relying on the testi- mony of a small number of police officers who owe their appointment to the government of the day. This is not in any way a criticism of superintendents for the time being but of the powers contained in this statute which is a permanent part of our legislation. Sub-section (3) of this section, which imposes an in- direct time-limit on sub-section 2, was the only amend- ment in the Dail and the Bill did not undergo any amendment in the Senate. It provides that this section would only remain in force for as long as the part of the 1939 Act which enables the government to bring into play the Special Courts remains in force. There- fore, when the Government resolves that the Special Courts are no longer necessary then this section relating to the belief of a Superintendent of the Garda Siochana will also lapse for the time being. It will revive of course whenever the Special Courts are re-introduced by a declaration of the Government. Section 4 Statements, meetings, etc., constituting interference with the course of justice. (1) (a) Any public statement made orally, in writing or otherwise, or any meeting, procession or demonstra- tion in public that constitutes an interference with the course of justice shall be unlawful. (b) A statement, meeting, procession or demonstration shall be deemed to constitute an interference with the course of justice if it is intended, or is of such a character as to be likely, dirccdy or indirectly to in- fluence any court, person or authority concerned with the institution, conduct or defence of any civil or criminal proceedngs (including a party or witness) as to whether or how the proceedings should be instituted, conducted, continued or defended, or as to what should be their outcome. (2) A person who makes any statement, or who organises, holds or takes part in any meeting, procession or demonstration, that is unlawful under this section rhall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable: (a) on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding £200 or, at the discretion of the court, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding twelve months or to both such fine a^d such imprisonment. 40

visiting a lady love unbeknown to his wife ! There is no definition of "recent" and it is a matter of discretion whether the account is sufficient to satisfy the member of the Garda Siochana. Section 3 Evidence of membership of unlawful organisation. 3(1) (a) Any statement made orally, in writing or otherwise, or any conduct, by an accused person imply- ing or leading to a reasonable inference that he was at a material time a member of an unlawful organisa- tion shall, in proceedings under section 21 of the Act of 1939, be evidence that he was then such a member. (b) In paragraph (a) of this subsection "conduct" includes omission by the accused person to deny published reports that he was a member of an unlawful organi ation, but the fact of such denial shall not by itself be conclusive. (2) Where an officer of the Garda Siochana, not below the rank of Chief Superintendent, in giving evi- dence in proceedings relating to an offence under the said section 21, states that he believes that the accused was at a material time a member of an unlawful organisation, the statement shall be evidence that he was then such a member. (3) Subsection (2) of this section shall be in force whenever and for so long only as Part V of the Act of 1939 is in force. Comment Sub-section (1) (a) of this Section is designed to make it easier to prove membership of an unlawful organisation. This seems reasonable in the light of the Minister's statistics that from the 1st February 1972 until the date of the debate at the beginning of Decem- ber there were thirty prosecutions and only three con- v ; ctions for membership of the I.R.A., and a number of cases were not prosecuted because of lack of sufficient evidence under the old law. However, when the word "conduct" in that sub-sec- tion is then defined to include omission by the accused person to deny published reports that he was a member of an unlawful organisation, and thus constitute evi- dence of membership of that organisation then I be- lieve the section has gone further than was necessary or indeed tolerable in a society which is concerned about Civil Rights. Reading the section it does not refer to future published reports, and could therefore mean any newspaper comments linking persons with the I.R.A. in past years, or any books or broadcasts in which this was done. Senator Horgan moved an amendment to delete this extension of the normal meaning of the word conduct on two grounds : firstly that it interfered with a person's right to a fair trial by allowing as admissible evidence of published state- ments about him, and secondly because it interfered with the freedom of the press in reporting and there- fore the public's right to information. "I should like to remind the house that freedom of the press is not an end in itself, it exists only in defence of people's rights to be informed. If it is generally noised abroad that a person is, or makes himself out to be, a member of an unlawful organisation and makes statements supposedly on behalf of such an unlawful organisation it is vital in the national interest that the people should know this." Sub-section 2 of this Section was the provision which gave rise to the most alarm among those concerned for Civil Rights in that it would allow a Chief Superin-