HC Deb 19 March 1900 vol 80 cc1196-7

I beg to ask Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, as representing the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether his attention has been drawn to the case of a prison warder named Edward Flynn, who, after nearly thirteen years in the service of the Prisons Board and seven years in the Army, having served through the Afghanistan War under Lord Roberts, was dismissed from Waterford Prison for alleged insubordination, and will he explain why his request for a sworn inquiry to be held was refused; will he explain why, when charges involving dismissal are made against prison warders, the person charged is not allowed, as in the case of the Royal Irish Constabulary, to have the assistance of a solicitor at the inquiry; also, why Flynn's request to be allowed to have legal assistance at the inquiry held concerning his case by Inspector Harol was denied; and whether, in consideration of the distinguished services and good character of Flynn, he will order a sworn inquiry into this case, and allow Flynn to have the help of his solicitor.


Edward Flynn served as prison warder for a period of twelve and a half years. He was dismissed from the service in February of last year for insubordination, persistent disobedience of orders, breach of prison rules, and conduct contrary to good order and discipline. Prior to his appointment as warder he had been in the Army, but I have no information as to whether he did, or did not, servo through the Afghanistan War under Lord Roberts. His character as awarder was not good. Flynn did not ask for a sworn inquiry into the charges on which he was dismissed. These charges he admitted. His request for an inquiry was made partly in respect of a very trivial charge which did not involve dismissal, and partly with the object of preferring charges against the governor of the prison, which he refused to specify beforehand in writing in the ordinary way. When sworn inquiries are held into charges against prison warders the persons charged are generally allowed to have the assistance of a solicitor. In the present case, as I have stated, no such inquiry was held. Having admitted the charges on which he was dismissed it was not necessary to hold an inquiry to investigate their truth, nor is it intended now to reconsider the case.