asked the Minister for Justice if, pending examination by his Department of the Devlin Report in Britain, he will review all cases in which convictions rested solely on evidence of identification, with a view to considering the release of those so convicted.

I do not consider such a review to be necessary even if it were practicable. As the Deputy will be aware, the report comments favourably on the terms of a direction embodied in a decision of our Supreme Court in 1962 in regard to a warning to be given by the court of trial where the correctness of an identification is challenged.

Is the Minister aware that a number of such reviews have already taken place in Britain and in the North of Ireland, resulting in many releases?

I am aware from what I have read in the newspapers recently that there have been two cases where reviews were carried out because of subsequent evidence of dissatisfaction with the evidence of identification. The Deputy's question is in relation to this jurisdiction, and I would draw his attention to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of The People v. Casey which lays down the procedures to be observed here and the procedures to be observed by a court with a jury in a case where identification is an issue. That case was commented upon favourably in the Devlin Report to which the Deputy refers in his question. As I indicated to the Deputy here last week, the two jurisdictions are broadly similar; they are not exactly similar and the problems of one are not necessarily the problems of the other. The report in question will be studied in my Department, but it is a large and detailed report, and it would be too early at this stage to say whether any changes in law or procedure will follow as a result of that study.

Is the Minister satisfied that there is no case here that would warrant review?

I am not aware of any case.

Has the Minister inquired?

I have not inquired, because it is not an inquiry that one can make. A matter such as that arises only when somebody who has information to suggest that there was some error of identification comes forward and asks for a review.

The remaining questions will appear on tomorrow's Order Paper.