asked the Taoiseach if he will state with reference to his reply of 23rd July, 1970 in regard to a certain prosecuting garda (a) when the garda was appointed to act as prosecutor by the State, (b) his experience of such work, (c) the number of fatal accident cases of which he had taken particulars previous to the case in question, (d) the number of prosecutions in court he had conducted previous to the case in question and (e) when he got his instructions from the Attorney General; and if he is now in a position to state whether the defendant in the case in question was covered by insurance.

Any garda can conduct prosecutions in court and special appointment for a particular prosecution does not arise. Up to the time of this accident the garda in question had conducted some 200 prosecutions. As full time observer on the district patrol car since 1968 he had investigated a great number of road traffic accidents, the exact number of which is not available. The one in question here was the only one which resulted in a fatality.

The Attorney General's instructions were transmitted on the 19th November, 1969.

The defendant in the case in question was not in breach of the law in respect of insurance at the time of the accident.

Will the Taoiseach admit that the prosecuting guard did not ask any questions and was not instructed to act as prosecutor until the actual morning when the solicitor who was to prosecute was not in a fit position to prosecute? Will the Taoiseach not further agree that there has been a grave miscarriage of justice in this case where a widow with 13 young children will not be compensated for the loss of the car or any personal property. Will the Taoiseach not further admit that the charge presented was inadequate to cover the offence committed in view of the fact that there were four independent witnesses to swear that this car was travelling at a very fast speed, passed out another car, continued on the wrong side of the road for 30 or 40 yards, mounted the footpath where the other man had pulled in? Will the Taoiseach not admit that there was a grave miscarriage of justice in this case?

It is a wonder Deputy L'Estrange did not go to court and give that evidence there instead of here.

There were four independent witnesses.

The Deputy cannot discuss the court's decision. The Deputy should understand that.

I should like to answer some of the points raised by the Deputy. Firstly, the garda was, in fact, asked to conduct the case on the morning that the case was before the court because the solicitor who would otherwise have conducted the case was engaged in another court. Secondly, whether or not he asked questions made no material contribution to the result in that the person charged was convicted of the specific charge that was presented. Thirdly, as for the inadequacy of the prosecution itself, I have no observations to offer on that other than to say that the case was prepared in the usual way in the Attorney General's office and presented to the Attorney General, who approved the terms of the prosecution as the prosecution was brought. Fourthly, as to the miscarriage of justice and its relationship to the position of the widow and her children, the result of this case has nothing whatever to do with the financial position of the widow and her children because irrespective of the outcome of the district court prosecutions it is open to the widow to bring a case in the civil court for damages in respect of the loss of her husband. To sum up: the person charged was found guilty of the charge presented; the garda was competent to present the case and if the widow has a case in civil law she is entitled to bring it.

Does the Taoiseach claim that it is justice for a man to be fined only £10 when he was driving on the wrong side of the road and killed a man in another car? The Taoiseach stated the case was prepared in the usual way but is the Taoiseach aware that the country is seething with discontent at the present time because it seems as though a person can commit murder, if he has the proper pull, and get away with it?

That question does not arise. We cannot discuss that on the question. The Deputy is disorderly.

This is a disgraceful abuse of the privileges of this House.

The Taoiseach knows it is completely wrong to tell me that this solicitor——

The Deputy will resume his seat and allow questions to continue.

——was defending another case; he came into court under the influence of drink.

The Deputy is disorderly. He will resume his seat or leave the House.

I certainly will not. There is a grave miscarriage of justice throughout the length and breadth of this country.

The Deputy may not continue along these lines.

I have heard from two independent witnesses——

This is a disgraceful abuse of the privileges of the House. I would ask the Fine Gael Party to control that Deputy's uncontrollable tongue.

I am asking the Deputy to leave the House.

The solicitor came into court under the influence of drink.

The Deputy is abusing the privileges of the House.

I know that this solicitor came into the court under the influence of drink and he was ordered out by the justice.

In view of Deputy L'Estrange's disorder, I must name the Deputy.

I will move the motion whether he stays or goes.

I would ask the Taoiseach to hold an inquiry and if he does I will abide by the results of it.