We use Google Analytics to see which pages are read and how the site is used, so we know what to improve. This only runs if you accept. See our privacy notice for details.

Seanad

Treason Bill, 1939—Report and Final Stages.

Bill Treason Bill, 1939
Enacted

No. 3 of 1939 ›

I move:—

In page 2, Section 2, sub-section (1) to delete all words from the word "engaged" in line 42 to the word "engaged" in line 45, and to substitute therefor the following words: "whom he knows or has reasonable grounds for believing to be engaged in committing treason shall".

Comment on this
Patrick Joseph Ruttledge Minister for Justice (Mr. Ruttledge) Fianna Fáil

I have brought forward this amendment to meet the objections raised by Senator Rowlette and Senator MacDermot on the Committee Stage. The object is to change the onus of proof.

Comment on this

It was suggested that the Minister should consider another point in that section, namely, whether it was necessary to retain the words "harbours and comforts" as well as "encourages." I am very pleased that he has brought in the amendment which he has just moved. It removes one of the greatest objections to the section as it stood. Perhaps the Minister would tell us the result of his consideration of the suggestion I made, that he should also alter the other words and make the offence simply one of encouraging a person to commit treason.

Comment on this

I considered the suggestions made by Dr. Rowlette, and while I would be very anxious to meet them, I am afraid that we could not possibly accept them. I admit that those are words under which a person acting, I will not say with good motives, but, perhaps, acting innocently might possibly become involved under the section. That, however, is a very extreme case. It would be very difficult to get an example of a case in which it would arise. If I attempted to provide for exceptions of that character I would find myself in considerable difficulty and I am afraid that the Bill, to a large extent, would be rendered very difficult in operation. I cannot say that I could visualise that a case such as the Senator has in mind would ever come to prosecution. I do not think there is any danger of its ever doing so. The Attorney-General will always consider the particular circumstances of a case, and I do not see any Government or any Attorney-General prosecuting a person where they find that he is acting from humane motives or where, at least, he is acting innocently.

Comment on this