asked the Minister for Justice if he is aware of the increasing number of allegations of ill-treatment of suspects in Garda custody; and if he will make a statement on the matter.

During the past fortnight or so widespread publicity has been given in newspapers and on radio and television to certain allegations that have been made recently.

May I first of all point out that as regards any person charged before the courts with a criminal offence it is the law that no statement made by an accused person may be admitted in evidence if it was not a voluntary statement. This means that the statement must not have been obtained as a result of physical pressure or a threat or an inducement. If any question is raised as to whether a statement was voluntary the onus of proof is on the prosecution and in any case of doubt the statement is inadmissible.

Where allegations of ill-treatment by Garda have been raised as an issue in a number of criminal trials that have been completed in recent times the Garda have been vindicated. I think it is fair to say that that has not been given very much prominence in newspaper reports that have appeared in recent days relating to alleged ill-treatment of persons in Garda custody. I emphasise that I am here referring to cases that have been completed and not to cases that are of are likely to become sub judice.

I am aware that some cases in which allegations have been raised are sub judice and there are others in which civil proceedings have been taken or are pending. However I can give the House some figures that will, I think, be useful. During the two-year period 1975-1976 the Garda Síochána say that 58 complaints of assault by gardaí on persons in or being taken into Garda custody or being questioned by the Garda were investigated by the Garda authorities. As a result in 22 cases they referred the file to the Director of Public Prosecutions for a direction as to whether criminal proceedings should be brought against the gardaí concerned. A direction against the taking of proceedings was received in 14 cases but charges were directed in the other eight cases. In the event, the charges were dismissed by the courts in all eight cases.

Because the Garda Síochána are a disciplined force and are entitled to demand high standards, they do not accept that just because the evidence does not warrant a criminal charge the garda concerned who was the subject of the complaint is necessarily free from blame. Accordingly internal disciplinary action was taken in four cases in which criminal proceedings had been brought even though the criminal proceedings were dismissed and disciplinary action was also taken in two other cases in which no criminal proceedings were brought. Nine of the 58 cases are still the subject of investigations.

This means that in eight cases out of 49 so far investigated one or more members of the force were prosecuted and, even though the charges all failed, the Garda authorities themselves took disciplinary action in four instances. Again, even though the Director of Public Prosecutions decided that criminal proceedings were not warranted, disciplinary action was taken in two cases.

I think that these facts show that suggestions that the Garda are not prepared seriously to consider the prosecution or disciplining of their own members where specific complaints are made to them are unfounded.

Another very relevant statistic is this. Criminal proceedings for assault have been taken against members of the force by complainants in eight cases during 1975 and 1976. They all failed—seven were dismissed and the eighth case was not proceeded with. These are additional to the criminal charges I have already mentioned which were initiated officially by the Garda themselves. Five civil actions which were taken against members of the force during the period are still pending.

The figures I have given relate to 1975 and 1976. As far as 1977 is concerned five allegations of ill-treatment of persons while in Garda custody are under investigation by the Garda Síochána. However in one of these cases a criminal prosecution has been taken by the complainant.

To complete this part of the story, may I add that successful civil actions against members of the Garda Síochána have been taken in two cases during the period. Both cases however related to unlawful detention, not to allegations of violence.

I think I should also advert to another aspect of the allegations in The Irish Times, namely the suggestion that the Garda have been found on several occasions to have misused their powers of detention under section 2 of the Emergency Powers Act—this allegation being linked by the newspaper, at least in general terms, with the allegation of brutality towards persons in detention. I propose to refer briefly to the cases that have arisen. I give the facts as I understand them to be and the facts as I state them are, to the best of my knowledge, not in dispute.

Case No. 1: A man was arrested under section 2, questioned and released. Some weeks later, as a result of further substantial evidence coming into the possession of the Garda, he was rearrested and again detained. The Garda, while accepting that the Act does not allow either an immediate rearrest of a person so as effectively to prolong the period of detention permitted by the Act or a rearrest made even after a period unless there was significant fresh evidence, were of the opinion that a rearrest was authorised by the statute in the special circumstances I have mentioned and the case was the subject of legal argument accordingly. However, a judge of the High Court held otherwise and, unless the Supreme Court some day finds to the contrary or the Act is changed, that view must now prevail. It was however, to put it at its lowest, an arguable legal issue and not a culpable abuse of power.

Case No. 2: A man voluntarily went with the gardaí to the Garda station. After some time, as a result of questioning and other information received by Garda, he was placed under arrest, pursuant to section 2, on suspicion of having been involved in very serious crime. Later still, a Garda superintendent who came to the station decided that his detention should be extended as provided for in the Act and he made an extension order accordingly. In doing so the superintendent was under the mistaken impression that the man had been under arrest from the time he first came to the station and the extension order was based on that assumption. The House will appreciate that the man concerned was in no way prejudiced by that error—on the contrary, it meant that the man had to be charged or released sooner than would have been necessary if the correct time of arrest had been known. Nevertheless, because the time stated in the order was factually wrong, and notwithstanding that the error was, so to speak, in the suspect's favour, the detention was held in court to be irregular.

Case No. 3: A man was arrested under section 2 by a garda. Some hours later a superintendent arrived at the station and, having checked the evidence available against him, was satisfied that he should be under arrest. However, through a misunderstanding, he thought the man had not already been formally arrested so he instructed a garda to take him outside the station door and formally arrest him under section 2. This was done and some time later the man was charged. The court held that this constituted a second arrest which invalidated the detention. Once again the House will see that the man's position was in no way prejudiced by what occurred, that the error was merely a technical one and that there was no element of harassment or other form of unfairness in the rearrest—in fact the main point about it was that it was an entirely unnecessary exercise but one undertaken out of a sense of punctiliousness.

I mention these three cases, firstly because they have been referred to in The Irish Times as evidence of abuse, and by implication culpable abuse, of power by gardaí—without sufficient detail being given to show precisely what in fact had taken place—and I mention them, secondly, to indicate to the House the kind of legal restraints to which the Garda are subject. In each of these three cases I believe that the intentions of this House in passing the Bill would have been that the Garda would be entitled to detain the persons concerned as they did. In none of these cases can it be said that the action of the Garda in relation to the arrest was oppressive and I hope that it will in fact at some stage be possible to have some of these issues brought before the Supreme Court.

Turning from the specific to the general, I would like to put the following on record. I have never suggested, and to the best of my knowledge it has never been suggested by the Garda authorities, that all complaints made against the Garda that emanate from persons associated with illegal organisations should be dismissed out of hand as propaganda. What I have said is that there is, beyond question, a deliberate effort to discredit the Garda by propaganda and that every allegation of assault that has so far been tested in court has failed, even though in many cases the circumstances were such that the onus of proof was on the Garda.

Nevertheless this in no way implies that some complaints against Garda may not be justified—and, far from saying that complaints from persons associated with illegal organisations were to be dismissed merely as propaganda, I have consistently stated that any specific complaint by a person who claimed to be ill-treated will be fully investigated. The distinction I make and will continue to make is between specific complaints by persons who claim to have been ill-treated on the one hand and, on the other hand, generalised complaints by third parties who either cannot or will not produce authenticated allegations from the person who claims to have been victimised. The facts and figures I have given show that specific complaints are investigated by the Garda and, far from being investigated only as a formality, have in fact resulted in a number of prosecutions and in disciplinary action in certain cases. In addition the courts are open to all citizens and we are now told that a special fund has been made available to finance cases against Garda. We are also told that there is no shortage of legal representatives willing to take up such cases. For my part, I am aware that certain matters which have been the subject of a great deal of publicity, in the context of this question, are likely to become sub judice in a criminal case shortly. I cannot say more than that at the moment, but I expect that Deputies will be able to see for themselves in the near future. At that point I believe that another side of the story may emerge and I trust that the press will be willing to devote space to reporting in the maximum detail what transpires from both sides, letting the chips fall where they may. For my part, I will welcome that. I hope that I do not have to emphasise that there will not be any condoning of brutality against any prisoner, and if it is shown that this has taken place strong action will certainly be taken against the persons responsible.

I have not so far referred specifically to the allegation that there exists a so-called "heavy gang". I note that The Irish Times has expressly disclaimed any intention of alleging that any such group was set up for the purpose of dealing with prisoners in an unlawful way; that what is alleged is that serious ill-treatment has in fact occurred. This being so, the matter is covered by what I have just said, namely, that it is to be confidently expected that allegations of this kind will come up for consideration in the courts, both criminal and civil, in the near future and the issue can then be tested in open court. In the meantime, because of the likelihood of the proceedings to which I have referred taking place in the fairly near future, I am not in a position to say more, nor is the time opportune for me to say anything one way or the other about calls for a special tribunal outside the Garda and outside the courts system. I will be able to deal with that and with any other points that may still need to be dealt with when certain current and pending cases are disposed of but, while they remain undisposed of, I cannot deal adequately with these other issues.

I wish to thank the Minister for his very full reply to my question, and I am sure he is appreciative of my efforts to see to it that the opportunity is given to him to uphold the good name of the Garda. Arising from the Minister's comprehensive statement, of which, unfortunately, there are not copies available to us, would he accept that his responsibility —responsibility that is solely his—lies in four direct areas? First, it is his sole responsibility to ensure that no person is ill treated while in Garda custody. Secondly, is it not his sole responsibility to ensure that if such ill-treatment has occurred, it will be stopped immediately? Thirdly, that in such circumstances he must ensure that those responsible are punished either by way of prosecution or of disciplinary measures? Finally, if the allegations made against the Garda are unfounded, is it not his sole responsibility to ensure that the good name of that force is vindicated? I wonder whether enough is being done to ascertain the facts and thereby to enable the Minister to carry out his responsibilities under these headings.

It should be clear to the Deputy from my reply as to what my responsibility is in this matter. I have indicated clearly that I would not condone any question of ill-treatment on the part of a member of the Garda against prisoners nor would such a situation be condoned by the Garda themselves. I have indicated also that the allegations should be investigated and that allegations of this nature have been investigated in the fullest way possible. I agree that the good name of the Garda should be vindicated but this is not a matter for me. I can only give the facts here and trust that these will be reported fully on the conclusion of any proceedings that may be relevant to these issues.

Would the Minister not agree that perhaps one of the best ways in which to safeguard the good name of the Garda would be the allowing of access to those in custody for periods of longer than two days of medical and legal advisers and also perhaps of some relatives, as was suggested by me during the debate on the emergency powers legislation in September last?

Access to legal and medical advice or assistance is available to any prisoner who requests it. There has been such access in certain cases. Indeed there is no restriction in this regard. The right to this advice or assistance has been found specifically by the Supreme Court. The Deputy may recall that during the debate in question I made the point that such rights were not excluded by the legislation. That statement was confirmed subsequently by the Supreme Court as being a proper statement of the position. Therefore that is the situation in fact and in law.

I am glad that the Minister has said that, because there is the impression that the situation is not as he describes it. Consequently I am glad to hear the Minister state once again that there is access to medical and legal advisers in respect of people in custody.

Is the Minister aware that there have been a number of cases in which persons charged with criminal offences —more particularly since the emergency legislation was enacted—have alleged ill-treatment while in Garda custody and where the Director of Public Prosecutions has caused prosecutions to be dropped? These were cases in which convictions would have depended on admissions made by the accused while in such custody.

I am not aware of any such case but the implication in the Deputy's question is very serious. I shall be grateful if he will communicate the details of the cases concerned to me. I am not aware of the reasons for the Director of Public Prosecutions deciding to proceed or not to proceed with charges. I understand it is the practice of his office not to give reasons for such decisions. Consequently I am at a loss to know how the implication in the Deputy's question can arise.