HC Deb 27 November 1882 vol 275 cc104-6
MR. TOTTENHAM

asked Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, If he will inform the House under what section of the Petty Sessions Act the recent proceedings at Murroe, before Messrs. Lyster and Bourke, were carried on?

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON)

Sir, the sections which the hon. Member requires for the information of the House are Sections 10 and 11, Sections 13 to 16, both inclusive, and Section 19.

MR. TOTTENHAM

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether Messrs. Lyster and Bourke, who were sent down to review the proceedings of the local magistrates at Murroe Petty Sessions, are two of the recently appointed temporary resident magistrates of four months' service each; whether the Bench which heard the case in the first instance consisted of Major Evanson and Captain Longbourne, both resident magistrates of experience, and three other local magistrates of equal experience; if it is the case that the prisoners established an alibi to the satisfaction of this Bench, resulting in a unanimous dismissal of the charge; and, whether there is any precedent for the course which has been adopted of sending two magistrates to review and set aside the ruling of five local magistrates of experience?

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON)

Sir, in reply to a Question on this subject by the hon. Member on a former day, I stated that no magistrates were sent down to review the proceedings of the local magistrates at Murroe Petty Sessions; and now, in reply to the hon. Member's first Question, I repeat my former statement. Mr. Lyster, named in this Question, is a barrister of 20 years' standing, with whose legal knowledge and ability I am myself acquainted. Mr. Bourke, also named in this Question, is a gentleman of whose competency as a Resident Magistrate the Government is satisfied.

MR. TOTTENHAM

What was their length of service as Resident Magistrates?

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON)

Mr. Lyster was a local magistrate as long as I have known him.

MR. TOTTENHAM

I am asking about their experience as Resident Magistrates.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON)

Both these gentlemen are of four months' standing as Resident Magistrates. As to the second Question, I am now informed that the Bench referred to consisted, not of one Resident Magistrate and three local magistrates—as I formerly stated in error—but of the two Resident Magistrates named in this Question and three local magistrates. Major Evanson's professional and magisterial experience extends to 15 years. Captain Longbourne has been some months a Resident Magistrate. The local magistrates were gentlemen of standing as local magistrates. As to the third and fourth Questions, there seems to be some confusion in the mind of the hon. Member between refusing an application to receive informations for an indictable offence and dismissing on the merits a case of summary jurisdiction. The latter is a final adjudication, subject in certain cases to appeal; the former leaves it open to the Crown, if so advised, to apply again for informations—a course which, for the reasons I have already stated to the House, I, as Public Prosecutor in Ireland, considered it my duty to take in this case.

MR. GIBSON

Had Mr. Lyster and Mr. Bourke, the two gentlemen sent down, instructions to tell the local magistrates that they should not sit on the Bench with them, and did Mr. Barrington and the other local magistrates claim a right to sit?

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON)

No, Sir; they did nothing of the kind.

MR. GIBSON

Who did not?

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON)

The Resident Magistrates made no such statement.

MR. J. LOWTHER

Did the local magistrates sit on the Bench?

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON)

They did sit, and were not interfered with.

MR. TOTTENHAM

Did the prisoners establish an alibi to the unanimous satisfaction of the Bench?

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON)

No, Sir; the Bench was not unanimous. If they were unanimous in dismissing the charge, they would have usurped a jurisdiction they did not possess. Having heard the evidence, it was their duty to send the case forward, and if they arrived at any other decision it would have been my duty to have it quashed in the Queen's Bench.