HC Deb 23 March 1893 vol 10 cc898-900
MR. CARSON

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he will state upon what grounds the release has been ordered of John Foley, who was convicted at the Cork Spring Assizes, 1891, under the Explosives Act, of having in his possession an explosive for an unlawful purpose, and sentenced to seven years' penal servitude; and whether, before his release, the Judge who tried the case was consulted and recommended such release; and, if so, on what grounds?

MR. J. MORLEY

Foley was convicted of having in his possession an explosive under suspicious circumstances, and was sentenced to seven years' penal servitude, the sentence taking effect from March 21, 1891. In October, 1892, a Memorial was submitted to the Lord Lieutenant praying for Foley's pardon. The learned Judge who tried the case was consulted in due course. He recommended that the sentence should be altered from a period of seven years to five years upon the ground of the comparative youth of the prisoner at the time of the offence; upon the circumstance that he was stated to be the support of his mother; and on the further ground of the peaceful and orderly state of Tipperary. As the conduct of the prisoner has been officially reported to be very good, his detention on the five years' sentence proposed by the Lord Chief Justice would, by prison Rules, have come to an end in December, 1894. On the Lord Chief Justice's Report, it appeared to me, on a survey of all the circumstances, that the three convictions which induced the Judge to suggest mitigation of sentence, pointed to a somewhat longer mitigation, and it was decided that a completed term of two years would meet the justice of the case. Foley was accordingly released on March 21, on licence.

MR. CARSON

What were the grounds stated by the Lord Chief Justice for recommending that the number of years should be reduced from seven to five?

MR. J. MORLEY

Surely that is what I have stated.

MR. CARSON

What are the mitigating circumstances which induced the Chief Secretary to reduce the five years to two?

MR. J. MORLEY

It is not a reduction from five years to two. If the advice of the Lord Chief Justice had been taken, Foley would have been out at the end of 1894; he would, therefore, have served three years and nine months. He has served two completed years. On reviewing all the circumstances, we felt that the Lord Chief Justice had not carried mitigation so far as we should have done; the considerations which led him to propose a partial mitigation led us to carry it one year and nine months further. That is the full extent of the mitigation we have made.