The Gazette 1971

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. 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.

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)

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