HC Deb 29 November 1888 vol 331 cc503-4
MR. LANE (Cork Co., E.)

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether Constable Edward Swindell, against whom a verdict of wilful murder has been found by a Coroner's Jury in Midleton, has been placed under arrest; whether it is correctly reported that, at the inquest, District Inspector Creagh, of Midleton, swore that he did not consider it any part of his duty as a police officer to take any steps to discover who killed Patrick Ahern, and that District Inspector Seymour, representing the Crown, stated that he would not produce any evidence as to how Ahern came by his death; and, whether, under these circumstances, he will give the Crown Prosecutor for the district special instructions to take the necessary steps to have Swindell brought to trial at the next Cork Assizes?

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

The constable has been placed under arrest upon the Coroner's warrant. The District Inspector did not swear that he did not consider it part of his duty to take steps to discover who killed Ahern. When these officers made inquiries from persons in Midleton they were met with a flat refusal to give information. The whole case will be laid before the Attorney General, who will give such directions as the case warrants.

MR. LANE

inquired whether the Inspector did not refuse to parade the men the next morning for the purpose of identification?

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

asked the hon. Gentleman to give Notice of the Question.

MR. W. O'BRIEN (Cork Co., N.E.)

asked whether or not every one of the persons examined against the police at the inquest had not since been served with summonses under the Crimes Act?

MR. COMMINS (Roscommon, S.)

asked, if it was usual to consult the Attorney General before proceeding in such cases?

MR. W. O'BRIEN

said, he must press the right hon. Gentleman for an answer to the important Question he had put—namely, whether every one of the witnesses who gave damaging evidence at the inquest against the police, and convicted one of them of murder, had not since been served with summonses under the Crimes Act?

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

said, the hon. Gentleman must be aware he knew nothing about the matter. If the hon. Gentleman would give Notice of the Question he would, of course, make the requisite inquiries.

MR. CONYBEARE (Cornwall, Camborne)

asked the right hon. Gentleman, if he would undertake that the Law Officers of the Crown would not enter a nolle prosequi, as was done in the case of the boy O'Hanlon, who was murdered by the police at Youghal?

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

said, the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Commins) was under a misapprehension. He did not say he was going to consult the Attorney General. This was a matter in which the Attorney General had absolute discretion, and, of course, he would not interfere.