181 / 196
ing to detention must have been given on oath, but this
is not required in Northern Ireland.) After a short
defined period a detention order should be made or the
prisoner should be released. In India the detention must
end within 12 days unless it has been authorised by
the highest executive authority. In wartime Britain in-
terrogation of suspects was for a defined limited period.
In all Commonwealth countries, except Northern
Ireland, representations to the advisory body are per-
mitted after a man has first been detained. They do
not require another internment order which can be
indefinitely postponed before representations are per-
missible. Again in those countries detainees (as under
Regulation 18B) are offered the earliest possible oppor-
tunity to make written representations to the Minister
concerned or detaining authority.
In Nkrumah's Ghana, in India, in Kenya, Malaya,
in wartime Britain, and in Lee Kuan Yew's Singapore
the detainee must be informed of the allegations against
him, but this is not required in Northern Ireland. In
most cases this has to be done within five days or
earlier. The allegations usually must contain sufficient
details to enable the detainee to present his case, unless
the disclosures would damage sources of information or
would be against the national interest.
In wartime Britain, in Ireland, and in Rhodesia
(under the preventive detention law approved by White-
hall in 1959) legal advice and representation was per-
mitted. This is not so in Northern Ireland. Nor is there
provision for publication of the names of detainees (as
was required within 14 days in the Kenya independence
constitution).
The advisory body has to hear appeals quickly—
"with all convenient speed" in the Republic, and within
one month in Kenya, Nigeria, Singapore and in France.
But in Northern Ireland it need only give "due con-
sideration" to the representations which are made.
Strangely, there is no automatic duty to examine every
internee's case individually as in India, Kenya and in
Mr. Smith's Rhodesia, although the Government has
made an administrative concession by stating that all
cases will be examined. The Nigerian and Kenya in-
dependence constitutions required automatic review of
the case of every detainee every six months. In Rhodesia
this is required every twelve months. Again in Northern
Ireland there is no time limit to the powers of intern-
ment and the executive authority is not required to re-
examine the decision and make a fresh order.
Again Northern Ireland has no proper machinery for
detainees and internees to complain against ill treat-
ment. In South Africa under the 90 day interrogation
law provision was made for a private visit by a magis-
trate at least once weekly to every detainee. The Irish
regulations require proper machinery for complaints
about ill treatment. Indeed the Irish regulations of 1957
set out detailed rules regarding the treatment of in-
ternees and of which rules they are to be kept fully
informed. In particular there are specific provisions for
continuous medical supervision and the keeping of
records (such of the worry voiced in the Gompton
Report would have been precluded had similar regula-
tions been applicable in Northern Ireland).
Any rules should contain all reasonable precautions
to obviate hardship so far as this is not inconsistent
with the purpose of detention. It is strange that in
Northern Ireland the executive authority is empowered
to depart from the rules regarding unconvicted prisoners
when detainees and internees (who have not been
charged with any offence) are held in custody outside
any of Her Majesty's prisons. In any case the regulations
for unconvicted prisoners are unduly harsh on persons
not charged with any offence. In the Republic regula-
tions carefully define interned men's privileges.
Finally, some financial provision should be made to
alleviate hardships on the families of detainees and
internees. Sympathetic though the social welfare
authorities may be in their administration of the law,
severe hardships may be suffered by families whose
income is suddenly reduced, by reason of internment of
the breadwinner, to the level of supplementary benefits.
With preventive detention a common occurrence in
the post-war world, the skill and experience of legis-
lators has grown. There is no excuse in 1971 for not
introducing detailed rules with modern safeguards to
replace the regulations of 1956 which (though less
strict than 1922 regulations) are largely modelled on
the now antiquated regulations introduced in 1914
under the Defence of the Realm Acts. The United
Kingdom Government, being internationally responsible
for its preventive detention laws, should assert its
authority, or act through the Westminster Parliament,
to ensure the passage of laws consistent with its inter-
national obligations and its democratic traditions.
[The Times
News Service)
VACANCY FOR SPECIAL EXAMINER
AND LECTURER
Applications are invited from solicitors and
barristers for the post of Special Examiner in the
Principles of Equity, Conveyancing, Registration
of Title and Land Law, and as Lecturer in
Conveyancing, Registration of Title and Land
Law. Particulars may be obtained from :
The Secretary,
Incorporated Law Society of Ireland,
Solicitor's Buildings,
Four Courts,
Dublin 7.
VACANCIES FOR APPRENTICES
From time to time the Society receives enquiries
from intending apprentices whether any master is
available to whom they can be apprenticed. The
Council has decided to open a Register of Solici-
tors, either in Dublin city or in the country, who
would have vacancies for such an apprentice. The
Council will appreciate if any member who has a
vacancy for an apprentice, would notify the
Secretary.
183