Previous Page  42 / 262 Next Page
Information
Show Menu
Previous Page 42 / 262 Next Page
Page Background

(b) on conviction on indictment, to a fine not

exceeding £1,000 or to imprisonment for a term not

exceeding five years or to both such fine and such

imprisonment.

(3) Nothing in this section shall affect the law as to

contempt of court.

Comment

This Scction is so broad in its terminology and in its

implications that I believe that it is the most far reach-

ing curtailment of Civil Rights contained in the legisla-

tion, particularly since it does not relate specifically to

illegal organisations or to an attempt to "clamp down

on the I.R.A." The Minister described this section in

the debate as the creation of a statutory form of what

was hitherto known as contempt of court but under

sub-section 3—nothing in this section "shall affect the

law as to contempt of court". Indeed the section goes

far beyond the present law relating to contempt of

court. Sub-section 1 defines the meaning of constituting

"an interference with the course of justice" as in-

cluding any statement, meeting, procession or demon-

stration likely directly or indirectly to influence the

institution, conduct/or defence of any Civil or

Criminal Proceedings as to whether or how the pro-

ceedings should be instituted, conducted, continued or

defended or as to what should be their outcome. Some

members of the legal profession who are reasonably

outspohen on judgments of the courts might find them-

selves in breach of these provisions! Similarly any per-

son who gathers near a crowd or follows upon a pro-

cession might find himself within the terms or sub-

section 2. There is no definition of "taking part" in a

meeting, procession or demonstration and yet the penal-

ties are very substantial amounting on indictment to a

possible imprisonment for five years. It has been

accepted in the United States that there must be a

certainty in the law which would allow an individual

to know whether by his conduct he would be committ-

ing a criminal offence. Statutes which do not comply

with this in having a sufficient degree of certainty have

been struck down as being unconstitutionally vague.

This section would appear to be broad enough to allow

a similar line of reasoning to be pursued before the

Irish courts. It is not necessary for the person to have

any specific

mens rea

to interfere with the course of

justice if his statement is

likely

to influence a party to

Civil Proceedings as to whether these should be insti-

tuted, conducted, continued or defended. If so this

would be sufficient to be an interference to the course

of justice. I wonder how many members of the legal

profession reading this feel as confident as the Minister

for Justice was that it only incapsulatcs in statutory

form the hitherto well known offence of contempt of

court?

Section 5

(5) The definition of "document" in section 2 of the

Act of 1939 is hereby amended by the insertion ofter

"advertisement' 'of the following:

"and also—

(a) Any map, plan, graph or drawing.

(b) any photograph.

(c) any disc, tape, sound track or other device in

which sound or other data (not being visual images)

are embodied so as to be capable (with or without the

aid of some other equipment of being reproduced there-

from, and

(d) any film, microfilm, negative, tape or other device

in which one or more visual images are embodied

(whether with or without sounds or other data) so as

to be capable (as aforesaid) of being reproduced there-

from and a reproduction or still reproduction of the

image or images embodied therein whether enlarged

or not and whether with or without sounds or other

data."

Comment

In his analysis in thé Senate debate of this Section,

Senator Horgan showed very effectively the danger of

broad definition sections. This section refers back to

the definition of "document" in the 1939 Act and the

extended definition of "seditious document" in section

3 of that Act which provides "seditious document is a

document in which words, abbreviations or symbols re-

ferable to a military body are used in referring to an

unlawful organisation." And he continues : "By adding

to the definition of 'document' the definition in para-

graph (c) of this section we are adding a vast amount

of material which is commonly available in this country

at present to the category not only of document but of

seditious document. There are numbers of ballad

groups in this country who sing songs about or purport-

ing to be about an organisation known as the I.R.A.

Many of these ballad groups have cut records into

which these songs are permanently inscribed and which

are sold all over the country." He then goes on to show

the implications for the balladeers, for the shops in

which these records are sold and for those who happen

to have these records in their possession. This may

sound far fetched, but it is the duty of members of

the Oireachtas to scrutinise legislation so that it does

not emerge in a form which is ambiguous or far reach-

ing or at certain points ridiculous.

Conclusion

This is an Act which provoked a very strong reaction

when it was published. Various criticisms were made of

its provisions, and it was described both here and in

Britain as an usparallelled extension of governmental

power and thereby a restriction on the rights and

freedoms of the individual. None of these criticisms lost

any validity when bombs went off in Dublin on Friday

1st December, but the Bill was law forty-eight hours

later. There are lessons to be learned, political lessons

about the strength of our institutions under pressure,

from this sad and disheartening experience.

[Editorial Note

: The views expressed in this con-

tributed article are the personal views of the author;

they are not the views of the Council, particularly

when they impinge on the political sphere. The Editor

is prepared to publish suitable comments justifying

this legislation if submitted.]

Notice

Clement Mason, deceased, late of 55 Monkstown

Road, Dun Laoire, Co. Dublin. Will any person

having any knowledge of a will of the above-

mentioned deceased, who died on 2 January 1973,

please communicate with : Messrs. Arthur Cox &

Co., Solicitors, 42-3 St. Stephen's Green, Dublin

2.

41