41 / 262
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-
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