HC Deb 14 May 1888 vol 326 cc146-8
MR. J. E. ELLIS (Nottingham, Rushcliffe)

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether his attention has been called to the fact that, in spite of an assurance given to their solicitor that the cases had been adjourned, three persons were tried and convicted, when absent from Court through the refusal of the constabulary to allow them to enter, by Mr. Tynte, R.M., at Loughrea Courthouse, of participating in the proceedings at Loughrea, on the 8th of April; and, whether such a practice of trying and convicting persons in their absence has the sanction of the Government?

THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR) (Manchester, E.)

The Resident Magistrate named reports that this Question does not accurately represent the facts. The cases against the three persons referred to had been originally entered for hearing at Petty Sessions on the 19th of April, before Mr. Paul, R.M., who adjourned them, informing the counsel for the defence that they would not be taken until after a Crimes Court case, which was also adjourned, on the application of the defendants' counsel, to the 26th of April. On the latter date Colonel Tynte, R.M., unaware of what Mr. Paul had stated on the 19th, came to the Court at the usual hour, and began to hear the ordinary business. He heard the cases against the three defendants, their names being first duly called in Court. The District Inspector of Constabulary reports that there is no ground for the allegation that the defendants were refused admittance by the police. Later on, the counsel for the defendants appeared, and stated that he had a promise from the presiding magistrate on the previous occasion that the ordinary Petty Sessions business would not be taken until after the Crimes Court case. Colonel Tynte, having satisfied himself that there was a misunderstanding as to the time for the defendants to appear, and, not having signed the order, ruled that these cases should be re-heard.

MR. J. E. ELLIS

Then am I to understand that Colonel Tynte had come to a decision?

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

If he gave his decision, he evidently rescinded it, because the cases are to be re-heard.

MR. J. E. ELLIS

Did he not come to a decision?

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

I have no further information.

MR. T. M. HEALY (Longford, N.)

asked, was it not the fact—as he was present in the Court—that these three persons were excluded from the Court and kept out of the Court when their own trial came on; and that, notwithstanding that, Colonel Tynte proceeded with the cases, and that it was only after the appeal of counsel that he rescinded his decision?

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

said, he understood that there was no foundation for the allegation that the police refused admittance to the defendants; and it was perfectly clear, from the facts he had laid before the House, that the defendants suffered no loss in the matter, and that full justice was done them.

MR. T. M. HEALY

asked, would the right hon. Gentleman give an undertaking that no person would be tried under such circumstances; because, had it not been for the intervention of counsel, Colonel Tynte would have signed the order, and great injustice would have been done?

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

Of course, no one will be intentionally tried under such circumstances.

SIR JOHN SWINBURNE (Staffordshire, Lichfield)

May I ask, whether the Government will grant these men compensation for the loss of time for having been brought to the Court, and their cases not having been tried?

[No reply.]