§ MAJOR JAMESON (Clare, W.)I beg-to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that Police-sergeant Sheridan and Constable Mahony, of Mullough Police Station, have been dismissed the service for 1579 placing boycotting notices in the pocket of a man named Ryan and subsequently arresting him; and what steps do His Majesty's Government propose to take to safeguard the public against such practices on the part of the police.
§ MR. WYNDHAMSergeant Sheridan and Constable Mahony arrested on the 1st January at Mullough, county Clare, a man named John Ryan, alleging that they had observed him in the act of posting a threatening notice, and that subsequently they had discovered two other threatening notices in his pockets. He was brought before the resident magistrate at Miltown Malbay on the following morning and remanded from time to time until the 26th January, when he was discharged from custody on the ground that the evidence would not have secured a conviction. No other course could properly have been taken when the evidence brought forward was, in the opinion of the Crown, untrustworthy. These police officers were not discharged for placing the notices in the man s pocket. They were discharged for supporting a charge by evidence of a character so unsatisfactory and conflicting as to render their further retention in the force undesirable in the interests of the public.
§ MAJOR JAMESONIs there any intention of prosecuting these two constables for illegal arrest?
§ MR. WYNDHAMNo, Sir. In their case, as in the case of Ryan, the Crown do not believe a conviction could lie obtained. The evidence goes to show that though apparently the officers acted in collusion with regard to the man arrested, it was not sufficient to justify a prosecution.
§ MAJOR JAMESONWill the Government grant a Select Committee to investigate this case, as was done in the case of Sergeant Malony of Limerick?
§ MR. SPEAKERThe hon. Member must give notice of that.
§ MR. WILLIAM REDMONDIs it customary to forthwith dismiss police officers simply because their evidence is untrustworthy? In view of the suspicion, which the right hon. Gentleman 1580 has admitted exists, that this case was concocted by the police, will he order a public inquiry into the whole circumstances?
§ MR. WYNDHAMI think there is no need for that. I repeat that in the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown the evidence is not sufficiently strong to justify a prosecution, but the conduct of the men was of such a character as we should not expect from officers in the discharge of their duty.
§ MR. WILLIAM JOHNSTON (Belfast, S.)Were these two officers Roman Catholics?
§ MR. FLAVIN (Kerry. N.)If the, two policemen were innocent, why were they dismissed from the force?
§ *MR. SPEAKEROrder, order! The matter cannot be thus debated across the floor of the House.
§ *MR. SPEAKEROrder, order!