§ MR. FLYNN (Cork, N.)I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland in reference to the case against a Mr. Kent at last Fermoy Sessions, whether he can state if the Constabulary regulations on the question of "shadowing" over-ride the Common Law; and if a police constable or officer has any rights in connection with following or shadowing a civilian which a civilian has not with regard to a police constable or officer?
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURThe reply to the inquiry in the first paragraph is in the negative. I cannot undertake to reply to the abstract question put in the second paragraph. The justification, or otherwise, for the proceedings referred to either by a police constable or a civilian must obviously depend upon the particular circumstances of the case.
§ MR. T. M. HEALY (Longford, N.)Has the Attorney General received the depositions in this case?
§ * MR. MADDENYes.
§ MR. T. M. HEALYDo they bear out the allegations made by the right hon. Gentleman in this House?
§ * MR. MADDENYes; but I shall be happy to show them to the hon. Gentleman.
§ MR. T. M. HEALYWas not the offence of which Mr. Kent was convicted the shadowing of a detective who was shadowing him?
§ * MR. MADDENMy original statement was that he was a police officer in plain clothes. That was denied. But my statement appears from the depositions to have been accurate.
§ MR. J. O'CONNOR (Tipperary, S.)Is it an offence to follow a police officer in uniform, and not for a police officer to follow a civilian?
§ * MR. MADDENIt is not an offence unless the following constitutes an obstruction to the officer in the discharge of his duty.
§ MR. T. M. HEALYHow is a civilian to know a policeman in the discharge of his duty if he is in plain clothes?
§ * MR. MADDENIf the hon. Member will read the depositions he will see what the facts of the case are. The man knew perfectly well that the officer was a police constable engaged in the discharge of his duty.
§ MR. ROCHE (Galway, E.)I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is-aware that Mr. Thomas Hayes, of Portumna, on leaving his house on Sunday, the 11th of May, to attend evening service, was shadowed by Constable Murphy, who, when Mr. Hayes met two-of his friends and stood to speak to them,, stepped in between the three men, and ordered Mr. Hayes, who was smoking at the time, to stop doing so; that, upon Mr. Hayes' refusal to obey the order, and telling the constable that if he did not like the smoke he could easily get rid of it by walking away, he was arrested, brought to the barrack, searched, and £87 found in his pocket; that, although Mr. Hayes told the police he had sent on 15 cattle to the fair of Woodford, which was to be held on the following day, and requested that he should be brought before a Magistrate that evening, or early in the morning, so as to allow him to attend to the sale of his cattle, his; request was refused, and he was kept in custody until 12 o'clock noon on Monday, and lost the sale of his cattle; whether Constable Murphy is the same man against whom both Mr. Fahy and Mr. Morrissey obtained decrees for £5 and £2 at last Quarter Sessions, held at Gort, for false arrest; can he explain how it 353 happened that, although Mr. Hayes was arrested on the 11th of May, the matter was allowed to drop until Fahy and Morrissey had obtained decrees against the constable; whether he has seen that it was proved at the trial that the constable had taken several pints of porter before he arrested Mr. Hayes, and that, after a full hearing, the case was dismissed; and, if so, what compensation is Mr. Hayes to get; and what action he proposes to take in reference to the constable?
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURI do not gather that the account in the first place can be taken as accurate, but the evidence given at Petty Sessions on the subject appears to have been conflicting. Mr. Hayes did not ask to be brought before a Magistrate, but, as a matter of fact, every effort was made to find a Magistrate at the earliest possible moment. Constable Murphy is the man referred to in the second paragraph. The police have, I believe, appealed. Through a mistake the summonses were not taken out by Hayes for the next Petty Sessions. But this had nothing to do with the claim against Murphy. There is no suggestion that the constable was drunk. The Magistrate, in dismissing the case, said the constable was injudicious, and that he gave Hayes the benefit of the doubt. The constable will be prosecuted at Portumna Petty Sessions, by order of the Solicitor General, under 6 William IV., c. 13.
§ MR. FLYNNI beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland in reference to the case of Mr. James O'Brien, of Killeagh, who was arrested for obstructing the constable who shadowed him at a fair, if he can now state whether it is a fact that Mr. O'Brien was compelled to wear the prison garments in Cork Gaol whilst confined as a bail or untried prisoner; and, if so, what explanation the Prisons Board have to offer on the matter?
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURThe General Prisons Board report that the allegation that the prisoner mentioned wore the prison dress is without foundation.