HC Deb 24 May 1892 vol 4 cc1663-5
MR. TIMOTHY HEALY

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if his attention has been called to the report of a Constabulary inquiry in the North Antrim Standard of 31st March, whereby it appears that Sergeant Seabrooke was found guilty of drunkenness, and having made on oath false charges against a comrade to screen himself; and also to the judgment of the Inspector General, as follows:— Arising out of the charges preferred against Constable Lynch, very serious matters against Sergeant Seabrooke and other constables have come to light, and the line of action adopted by them was deceitful and indiscreet, and if persisted in would have compelled their expulsion from the force. But inasmuch as they now admit the allegations against them, this course of action would not fee adopted, but in lieu of it the following penalties would be inflicted: Sergeant Seabrooke is reduced to the rank of constable, and transferred at his own expense to the County Leitrim"; whether the Executive have sanctioned this retention in the force of a constable who is found to have confessed himself guilty of perjury to avert a sentence of dismissal; whether Seabrooke is the same policeman who was promoted after giving evidence against the Crossmaglen prisoners, sentenced in 1883, for alleged conspiracy to murder, to seven and ten years' penal servitude; and why, after the Inspector General's decision and the findings of the official tribunal, Seabrooke is not now prosecuted for perjury on his own confession?

*MR. JACKSON

The Constabulary authorities report that it is the case that the sergeant mentioned was punished for drunkenness, but it is not the case that he has been found guilty of making false charges against a comrade or that he has been guilty of perjury as alleged. He did give evidence in the case mentioned, but he did not receive promotion after giving that evidence.

MR. TIMOTHY HEALY

Will the right hon. Gentleman say what is the meaning of the Inspector's words: that the sergeant had been deceitful and indiscreet, and had pursued a line of conduct that, if persisted in, would have compelled expulsion from the force? Does it not mean that, though guilty of this conduct, he was after confession permitted to remain in the force? Does the right hon. Gentleman think that such a man should be allowed to remain in the force?

*MR. JACKSON

The hon. Gentleman has been misinformed or has misunderstood the Report of the Inspector. It is not true that Sergeant Seabrooke had been found to have committed perjury, or that he was guilty of making false charges against a comrade.

MR. TIMOTHY HEALY

Not technically so.

*MR. JACKSON

I will explain if the hon. member will permit me. Two charges made by him against the constable were found to be proved, but in regard to other allegations the Court found his conduct had not been straightforward. He admitted certain charges made against him which in the first instance he denied. There was no reference in the Report as to his having made false charges on oath against a comrade.

MR. TIMOTHY HEALY

But was it not a sworn inquiry, and did not the Inspector say that the line of conduct if persisted in would have led to expulsion? Does the right hon. Gentleman think that such a man should be allowed to remain in the force and to give evidence as a policeman against Her Majesty's subjects?

*MR. JACKSON

The whole question was carefully considered by the Court, and there does not appear to be any reason to interfere with the decision arrived at.

MR. TIMOTHY HEALY

As a warning to the public, will the right hon. Gentleman say where this man Seabrooke is now on duty?

*MR. JACKSON

If the hon. Member will put down a question I will endeavour to answer it.

MR. TIMOTHY HEALY

I will do so, and will, if necessary, again and again call attention to the man's conduct.