HC Deb 11 July 1890 vol 346 cc1478-9
MR. BYRNE (Wicklow, W.)

I beg to ask the Attorney General for Ireland whether his attention has been called to a paragraph in the Leinster Leader, of the 5th July instant, which states— That Mr. P. J. Healy, Baltinglass, still continues to be the subject of more persistent police surveillance. At Tinahely Fair, on Wednesday, the police were on his track wherever he went through the town in the transaction of his private business. Not only did they follow his every movement in the public streets, but when Mr. Healy had occasion to enter private houses to make visits to friends in the town, the police forced an entrance after him and refused to leave while Mr. Healy remained in the house; whether he is aware that this Mr. Healy was acquitted by two Resident Magistrates of any criminal act; whether he will cause the police not to interfere with this man in future; and whether he will consider the advisability of putting a stop to following persons into private houses?


The Constabulary Authorities report that it is the case that, at the fair held at Tinahely on 25th June, the movements of Patrick Healy were watched, there being reason to believe that he is engaged in conjunction with the local branch of the National League, in endeavouring to promote the boycotting of a man who took the farm from which Healy had been evicted. But that it is not the case that the police followed him into any private house, the only places they entered after him being licensed premises. It is the case that Healy was subsequently charged at Petty Sessions with having committed intimidation on the 21st May, and that the Magistrates dismissed the case. In doing so, however, they stated that the case was a very suspicious one, but that they had given the defendant the benefit of the doubt.

MR. FLYNN (Cork, N.)

I beg to ask the Attorney General for Ireland whether his attention has been called to the reports in the Cork papers, from which it appears that two brothers, Edmond and David Kent, were at Fermoy fair on 6th instant, engaged in selling some lambs, when a constable came and "shadowed" David Kent for a considerable time; that this man, David Kent, then went and stood beside District Inspector Ball, and followed the Inspector about the fair, he himself being followed meanwhile by the constable; that District. Inspector Ball spoke to Mr. Kent, and said, "If you persist in following me I will have you arrested;" and that Kent replied that he had been prevented from doing his business by the constable shadowing him, and that if the Inspector withdrew the constable he would not follow the Inspector; if it is true, as reported, that the Inspector thereupon ordered the shadowing constable to arrest Mr. Kent, who was kept in custody from 9 a.m. until 3.30, and then summoned under the Crimes Act; and whether he can state under what authority was Mr. Kent arrested, and why was he shadowed in the manner described?


I must ask the hon. Gentleman to postpone the question. The matter is sub judice, and, therefore, I am unable to make a statement.