DR. KENNYI beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he has seen the statement given in evidence by Governor Andrews, of Cork Gaol, at the inquest on John Twiss, executed on last Saturday, 9th instant, that magisterial investigations, at which a Resident Magistrate, the Crown Solicitor, and Inspector Irwin were present, were held in Cork Gaol, and evidence taken in reference to the crime of which Twiss was subsequently convicted, and that at those investigations the prisoner was not professionally represented; and whether such investigations are according to custom; and, if so, whether he will take measures to put an end to such proceedings?
MR. J. MORLEYIn answer to my hon. 718. Friend, when further evidence against a prisoner is obtained after he has been committed for trial, it is, I am informed, the usual and proper course, and a course taken in favour of the prisoner, to take that evidence in his presence, lest he should be taken by surprise by its production at the trial. The evidence in this case was that of a man named Reidy, but was not used at the trial. The prisoner was not professionally represented when the witness's evidence was given in the prison. Copies of the evidence taken were, on the same day, forwarded to the solicitor acting for Twiss, and that is the answer to the question on the Paper. As, however, the lion. Member mentioned the name of District Inspector Irwin in the question, perhaps I may be allowed to take this opportunity of referring to certain allegations that have been made affecting him. It has been alleged that he paid money to Twiss to swear against a certain person or persons; that he told him that he had "a rope round his neck;" and that he had shown Twiss photographs of certain persons. I have received to-day from Inspector Irwin a Report, in which he stated explicitly that he never at any time, either in court or in prison, offered any money to Twiss to swear against any person or persons, or for any other purpose whatever, during the time that he was employed in the investigation of the case, or at any other time. He never mentioned to Twiss that he had a rope round his neck, or at any time showed him photographs of persons.
DR. KENNYreminded the Chief Secretary that he had made no insinuations against Irwin. Did the right hon. Gentleman approve of the practice in criminal cases—where a man's life might be in jeopardy—of additional evidence being taken in a prison, away from all publicity, against a prisoner who had no professional aid, whether in his presence or not? Why was it not given in open Court or reserved for the trial? Under what Statute was evidence taken in this way?
MR. J. MORLEYreplied, that he could not say under what Act of Parliament the procedure was based. But he had informed himself about the practice, which was in favour of the prisoner. When new evidence was found against 719 a prisoner after he had been committed for trial, two courses might be taken before the trial took place—the depositions might be taken outside the prison and communicated afterwards to the prisoner, or the evidence of witnesses might be taken by a Magistrate in prison in the presence of the accused. This was to prevent new evidence being sprung upon the prisoner at the trial.
§ MR. HARRINGTONasked whether the right hon. Gentleman thought it was in favour of a prisoner, when he had a solicitor to defend him, that additional evidence should be taken against him in a prison and behind that solicitor's back?
§ *MR. SPEAKERsaid, this question was not in Order, as it discussed what was in favour of the prisoner or not, which hardly arose here.
§ MR. HARRINGTONthen asked whether notice was given to Twiss's solicitor that the additional evidence would be taken, and whether he had an opportunity of using it for prisoner's defence if it was not in favour of the prosecution?
§ MR. E. F. VESEY KNOX (Cavan, W.)asked whether the right hon. Gentleman had considered the effect of witnesses being examined in the walls of a prison?
MR. J. MORLEYsaid, it did not matter what the effect on witnesses was, he was right in assuming that the practice of taking the evidence in prison and in the prisoner's presence was in favour of the prisoner. Notice that the evidence would be taken was given to the prisoner's solicitor; but the witness was not produced at the trial, and the evidence was not used for any purpose.
DR. KENNYpointed out that perfectly inadmissible evidence might be given against a prisoner who had not the protection of a legal adviser.
MR. J. MORLEYsaid, he had discussed the matter thoroughly with those who were competent to advise him, and he was convinced that the course taken was not injurious to the prisoner.
§ MR. W. REDMONDasked if representatives of the Press were at liberty to attend the taking of evidence in prisons?
§ Mr. SPEAKEROrder, order !