The Gazette 1972

EDITORIAL

The Offences Against the State (Amendment) Act 1972

We condemn unreservedly the destruction to property

caused by bombs in Northern Ireland regardless by

whom it was perpetrated, as well as the appalling

injuries and loss of life caused not merely by bombs but

also by deliberate assassinations in the Six Counties; we

also deplore the unnecessary harassment of Catholic

districts by British troops. Yet the bombs which fell on

Dublin on the evening of December 1st were most

fortuitous in securing an easy passage for this draconian

legislation.

tionality, if the matter were brought before it.

Section 2 enacts that if a scheduled offence under

the 1939 Act has been committed, and a Guard believes

that a person in the vicinity knows of the circumstances

in which the offence was committed, he can demand

under penalty the name and address of such person,

and his means of knowledge of the offence. But the

substantive offences of the Act are contained in Sections

3 and 4. If a person, who is charged with being a

member of an unlawful organisation, has made at any

time a written or oral statement, implying or inferring

that he was such a member, or omitting to deny that

he was such a member at a material time, this will be

deemed sufficient evidence that he was in fact a mem-

ber and will subject him to specified penalties on con-

viction (Section 3, subsection 1). If a Chief Superin-

tendent in such proceedings states, before the Special

Criminal Court, that he believes that the accused was

at a material time a member of an unlawful organisa-

ton, this statement shall be sufficient evidence that

he was then a member, and he will be subject to the

prescribed penalties of up to two years imprisonment

(Section 3, subsection 2). It is unlawful under specified

penalties of up to four years imprisonment to make an

oral or written statement or to hold or to take part in

any meeting, procession or demonstration in public, that

constitute» a vague interference with the course of

justice, which apparently consist in directly or indirectly

influencing any Court or authority concerned with the

prosecution or defence of a case.

It is a fundamental and inalienable principle of the

criminal law that anyone accused of an offence is

presumed innocent until he has been found guilty by a

Court. If a Court is now to accept the opinion of a

Chief Superintendent, or an alleged oral or written

statement as to whether anyone is a member of an un-

lawful organisation or not or to convict participants in

processions this will not only introduce a drastic

change in the law of evidence, but appears to be

equivalent to an indirect method of internment, if the

accused is convicted.

The late President of the High Court, in

The State

(Burke) c. Lennon

(1940), I.R. 144, said that the right

to personal liberty meant much more than mere freedom

from incarceration, and if a man is confined against

his will, he has lost his personal liberty, whether the

restraint be called imprisonment, detention or intern-

ment. At page 155, he said : "The Constitution with its

most impressive Preamble is the Charter of the Irish

People, and I will not whittle away. In my opinion, the

Constitution intended, while making all proper pro-

visions for times of emergency, to secure his personal

freedom to the citizen as truly as did Magna Charta in

England." Like the 1939 Act, the 1972 Act is a per-

manent non-emergency piece of legislation passed with

undue haste. There is ample evidence to prove that the

powers under the 1939 Act were more than sufficient to

charge anyone with subversive activities if the Govern-

ment had cared to use them. The draconian police

powers under this Act are completely superfluous. One

would consequently expect vigorous opposition from

lawyers on the ground that, under Article 40 (3) of the

Constitution, this legislation does not respect the per-

sonal rights of the citizen, and does unjustly attack his

person by changing unnecessarily the recognised stan-

dard laws of evidence.

Auction of King's Inns Books

The Benchers of King's Inns deserve the strongest

possible censure from the Irish public. They decided to

sell all their books on English and foreign literature,

travel, philosophy, etc.—in a word, all books that did

not strictly pertain to the realm of law. It is to be noted

that some of these books were

incunabula,

printed before

1500, and others were the only copies extant in Ireland;

furthermore many volumes had been donated to the

King's Inns on the express condition that they were

kept there permanently. Despite the fact that the King's

Inns is an exceptionally rich corporation, which, unlike

our Society, does not publish annual accounts, the

Benchers' sole concern appears to have been to accumu-

late funds unnecessarily. They thus decided without

any apparent motive to sell those irreplaceable books

through public auction at Messrs. Sotheby in London

without giving Irish Libraries a proper opportunity to

purchase them beforehand. The first auction last May

realised more than £64,000, and presumably the

auction in November extending over several days,

realised at least as much. Despite the fact that the

Government weakly allowed these invaluable books to

be exported from Ireland, no explanation of any kind

has yet been forthcoming from the Benchers as to why

it was necessary to sell them to accululate these fantastic

sums. One can only question dubiously this alleged

necessity. The Irish public in a matter of such public

concern is entitled to a full explanation from this body

which should be given even at this late stage.

- 2 6 8