HC Deb 01 July 1875 vol 225 cc785-6
MR. R. POWER

asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, Whether his attention has been called to the case of John Slator, recently acquitted at the Commission Court in Dublin of a criminal assault on his own daughter, and to the reported remarks, as reported in "The Freeman's Journal," of one of the jurors and of the Judges:— Mr. Justice Barry said, He could not characterize the proceeding but as a failure of justice. A juror suggested that they should append to their verdict a statement to the effect that the indictment had been carelessly prepared. Mr. Baron Dowse asked whether the Attorney General was aware, when the indictment was being-framed, that a woman could not be examined against her husband in a criminal case, and added it was a serious miscarriage of justice, and if the Attorney General did not know the law in the case he ought to have known it; whether the Report is substantially correct; and, whether any steps have been taken or are intended to be taken to secure an efficient management of criminal prosecutions?

SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH

, in reply, said, that this was one of those cases which not unfrequently happened in which evidence given at the trial differed from that given upon the information. There were three counts in the indictment against the prisoner. The first two were for assault upon a child under 12 years of age, and the third was for an indecent assault, without regard to the age of the child. No evidence could be adduced at the trial which satisfied the Court that the child was under 12 years of age, and it had since been ascertained that the child was absolutely over 12. It appeared by the information with regard to the third count that the child was not a consenting party, but upon her cross-examination it appeared that she was so. Therefore the count for an indecent assault could not be sustained. There was no failure of justice with regard to this particular trial. With regard to the remarks attributed to Mr. Baron Dowse upon the occasion, he (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) held in his hand a letter from that learned Baron, from which it appeared that he did not use the words—" If the Attorney General did not know the law in the case he ought to have known it." Baron Dowse was, of course, aware that the duty of the Attorney General was merely to decide in cases of this kind whether a prosecution should be instituted or not, and that the form of the indictment and the future proceedings in any particular case were entrusted to two gentlemen—who in this case happened to be Mr. Murphy and Mr. O'Brien—who were universally admitted to be thoroughly capable of fulfilling their duties, and had been appointed to their offices by the late Government. He might also quote from Mr. Baron Dowse's letter that learned Judge's opinion with regard to the capabilities of these gentlemen. Mr. Baron Dowse said— I may add—and in this I have the assent of my colleague Mr. Justice Barry—that at the last very heavy commission, as a rule, the prosecutions in Green Street were remarkably well conducted by the experienced solicitor and able counsel who represent the Crown. Other Judges had at different times expressed the same opinion. On the whole case he would remark that there had been no failure of justice, and that whatever might have occurred the Attorney General had been most unjustly blamed for a matter which was not under his own control, and in which he was not in any degree responsible.

MR. R. POWER

asked, whether Mr. Justice Barry did not say that he could not characterize the proceedings except as a failure of justice?

SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH

said, he thought that might very likely have been the case, and he would explain why. The learned justice and the jury were at the time under the impression, which was afterwards disproved, that the child was under 12 years old.