§ MR. MACVEAGHI beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland (1) whether he is aware that in the prosecutions on Thursday for the rioting at Dromore, County Down, two of the witnesses failed to identify any of the accused, although they had previously made statements identifying the accused; (2) whether he is aware that in the Normoyle case the witnesses who declined to confirm their previous identification were committed to prison for contempt of court; and (3) will he explain why a similar course was not pursued in the Dromore case, and why the Dromore prosecutions were not conducted under the Criminal Law and Procedure (Ireland) Act.
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. ATKINSON,) Londonderry, N.At the request of my right hon. friend. I will reply to this Question. The witnesses in the Normoyle case were committed for contempt because, in the opinion of the presiding Justice, they were obviously prevaricating, swearing falsely, and trifling with their oaths. There is no foundation for the suggestion that the two witnesses in the Dromore prosecutions pointed at in the Question, namely, Mr. Wilson and Miss Whiteside, were guilty of misconduct of that kind. A bench, of seven magistrates, including the resident magistrate, decided that, while a riot undoubtedly took place on the occasion, there was no evidence to implicate any of the persons accused. The proceedings were not taken under the Crimes Act, because there was no reason to believe that a jury could not be found in that county who would decide according to the evidence.
§ MR. MACVEAGHHOW does the right hon. Gentleman arrive at the conclusion that this is justified because the jury could be relied on, in view of the fact that the case was not going before a jury at all, but before a packed, bench of magistrates?
§ MR. ATKINSONThe hon. Member asked why were not the proceedings instituted under the Crimes Act. My answer was that justice could be obtained under the ordinary law.
§ MR. MACVEAGHIs the right hon. Gentleman aware that the suggestion that these witnesses swore falsely was made by the Crown Solicitor at the trial?