HC Deb 08 May 1883 vol 279 cc223-4
MR. KENNY

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If it is a fact that a witness summoned privately under the Act for the Prevention of Crime (Ireland), 1882, before a magistrate, and then and there compelled to give evidence, can have anything suggested to him and put into his mouth, and taken down and attributed to him, and then be threatened with prosecution for perjury unless he swears to what is thus taken down; if there is any Clause in said Act which precluded persons so examined at secret inquiries having the benefit of a solicitor to protect them from misrepresentation as to what their evidence really was, and to protect them from prosecution for perjury; if Mr. P. Sullivan swore, at a recent inquiry at Ennis before Mr. Clifford Lloyd, that he asked over and over again to have his depositions corrected, and that they were not so corrected; and, if the Irish officials or advisers of Her Majesty's Government are prepared to extend the protection of a legal man to witnesses so pressed and examined?

MR. TREVELYAN

Sir, the first part of this Question appears to convey the notion that the responsible magistrates, intrusted by Statute with the duty of conducting inquiries for the purpose of the detection of crime in Ireland, have been, or are likely to be, guilty of misconduct in the discharge of their duty, as imputed in the Question. I must decline to give any answer to that part of the hon. Member's Question, further than to say that there is no foundation whatever for the charge conveyed, and that the Government feels, as Parliament felt when it was passing the Crimes Act, that the magistrates, designated for the purpose by the Statute, may be safely intrusted with the dis- charge of the duty imposed upon them. As regards the second and fourth paragraphs of the Question, I have to state that a person examined as a witness under the Crimes Act is not entitled, under the Statute or otherwise, to have a solicitor present on his behalf, and the Government do not intend to propose any alteration in the law in this respect. As to the third paragraph of the hon. Member's Question, I must decline, as I have already done, to enter into a discussion as to a particular statement made by a witness in a judicial inquiry which is still pending.

MR. O'BRIEN

Might I ask whether one of the gentlemen who was appointed special resident magistrate has not been dismissed for misconduct?

MR. TREVELYAN

Undoubtedly, Sir, in so large a service as this it has happened that a special resident magistrate has been called upon to resign; but the only deduction to be drawn from that is that the Executive consider that, as a body, their standard of integrity and ability should be very high indeed.

MR. HARRINGTON

Might I ask the right hon. Gentleman, arising out of this Question, whether it has come to his notice that, in a case at Mullingar, in which I was interested, five resident magistrates were present when a witness swore that they had never read his depositions to him, that he had never read them himself, and that, as he stated afterwards, they were not true?

MR. TREVELYAN

I must ask for Notice of the Question.