(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




