Cooney, Patrick MarkTuesday, 8 July 1975 |
Seanad Eireann Debate
Page of 4
|
There were one or two things said in regard to section 2 that I would like to take issue with. The old arguments were produced that it is untimely to have such an offence as that created by section 2...
This is a drafting amendment. It is to make absolutely clear that the offence under section 3, subsection (1), of escaping from custody in Northern Ireland when charged with or convicted of an extra-...
I wish to make one or two brief points in regard to Senator Lenihan's submission on this section. First of all, may I make the point that bail does not guarantee absolute freedom? We will go into this...
Senator Robinson bases her opposition to this section on her readings from the booklet, Justice in Northern Ireland, on the ground that it discloses a biased judicial system— biased in favour of one s...
The Senator used this to justify her opposition to the section and it does not justify it at all.
I dislike hypocrisy and dishonesty.
I withdraw that and say that I reject opposition to a Bill based on inadequate quotations.
I can understand the Senator's opposition.
The reason for the change is because there was a decision to extend the operation of this section to Great Britain. As drafted originally it was intended to apply only to extra-territoriality on this...
No, not at the instigation. If the Senator thinks that the Birmingham bombers should be allowed to escape without suffering the consequences of their acts, he should say so, if that is what he means b...
By agreement.
If they took refuge here would the Senator like to see a situation where they could be punished?
This is what the section does.
The whole Bill was prepared in joint consultation with the British authorities because there is a reciprocal Bill going through their Parliament. It had to be done by way of joint consultation.
The stupidity of the suggestion upsets me, nothing else.
Fianna Fáil have lost the dog—
May I say, before going to the amendment, that over teatime I had time to reflect on the criticism I made of the Senator immediately before teatime. My criticisms of what she said and of her motives ...
To deal with this amendment, Senator Robinson says that we have the worst of all worlds in the Bill, as drafted. I would respectfully suggest that were we to accept her amendment we would be making w...
But having entered the building he is still guilty, paragraph (b).
Nor within the Theft Act definition.
But see the basic definition of “theft”. If I may read it, it says that a person is guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depr...
Oh, it must; it cannot be otherwise.
The definition cannot mean anything then.
It would be a different kind of stealing. It would be the stealing by misappropriation which would take place at the time the intention was formed. It would not be a burglary. But then burglary and...
That is a separate offence. That could not be part of “burglary” in the example the Senator has given—the example the Senator gave was of a person entering, seeing something and subsequently misappro...
The point I am making is that, in order to have burglary under the present English law, the asportation must take place at the time of the burglary, which is the present position under our law.
Yes, it has to be so because there has to be physical asportation, though even lifting is enough.
Yes, and under the present British Act, because there has to be the intention of permanently depriving the other of it and in burglary one cannot have that unless there is some form of asportation. O...
Taking and carrying away has been defined by the courts. You do not have to depart with the thing wrapped up.
I regret to say I cannot accept the amendment because I think it would lead to an even worse position. In practical terms it would not improve the position. I cannot conceive of a situation where our...
It is part of the reciprocal nature of the Bill. It is a reciprocating Bill providing the same provisions as in the UK Bill. Question put and agreed to. Sections 9 and 10 agreed to. NEW SECTION.
I must say I am not accepting the amendment because I cannot see any need for it. As I said when I was replying to the Second Stage of the debate, the Bill allows the offences here to be tried before...
The amendment seeks to give the Special Court seisin of offences under section 2 and 3 so far as they have been declared scheduled offences and come under the provision of section 36. But the Special...
The triggering of the jurisdiction of the Special Criminal Court is provided for in the 1939 Act and it is clearly set out there as being an executive function. It is triggered either by action of th...
It also cuts out the possibility of sending them to a judge and jury. It is unlikely that will happen but the Senator's suggestion cuts that out completely.
It is not artificial. The Senator's suggestion cuts that possibility out.
I agree it is theoretical.
One could have a scheduled offence in which the Attorney General would still have discretion if it were a summary offence, as provided for under section 45 of the 1939 Act. It is not correct to say th...
The purpose of these amendments—Nos. 12, 13, 15 and 16— is to dispense with the requirement that if a person goes to Northern Ireland for the purpose of hearing evidence being taken on commission he s...
Under the police only.
An accused.
Would the Senator allow reciprocity to the RUC coming down here in similar circumstances?
| Last Updated: 14/09/2010 19:58:41 |
Page of 4
|