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. 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.

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 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

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. 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