§ MR. DILLON (Mayo, E.)I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland on what grounds Constable Anderson was dismissed from the Irish Constabulary, and by what authority his case was inquired into when the decision to dismiss him was arrived at; on what representations was his case reconsidered; what was the tribunal which conducted the further inquiry; and on what ground and by what authority was Constable Anderson reinstated in the force.
§ MR. WYNDHAMConstable Anderson was dismissed from the force upon consideration of the evidence investigated and reported upon by a Court of Inquiry. There were three charges preferred against him, namely, (1) having improperly entered licensed premises when on duty, (2) having used obscene language to a boy, and (3) having been guilty of grossly immoral conduct with a young woman. In the opinion of the Court of Inquiry the first and third charges were, and the second charge was not, sustained. I wish to state that the Court of Inquiry was convened on the initiative of the police. A suggestion, which I have seen; that it was convened at the instance of myself, or of Sir Antony MacDonnell, is absolutely without foundation. The 1498 constable was removed from the force on 8th December.
§ MR. DILLONBy whose authority?
§ MR. WYNDHAMI am coming to that. The members of the Royal Irish Constabulary hold office at pleasure. They can, therefore, in point of law, be dismissed arbitrarily by the Crown without reason given or cause assigned. Court; of Inquiry do not resemble either Civil Courts or Courts-Martial, but there is the closest resemblance in character and function between them and Courts of Inquiry authorised by the Army Orders for the purposes of that service. In Simmons on Court-Martial, at page 334, it is stated that "A Court of Inquiry is not in any light to be considered as a judicial body. A Court of Inquiry is rather a council than a Court, of which any officer in command may take advantage to assist him in arriving at a correct conclusion on any subject on which it may be expedient for him to be thoroughly informed." The Lord-Lieutenant's function is not confined to confirming the finding of the Court of Inquiry, or disregarding it only in those cases in which there is no legal evidence to support it. His function extends further and enables him to review the evidence, differ from the conclusions, and disregard the opinion. Fresh evidence was subsequently supplied by the solicitor who had appeared for Constable Anderson, on the third and most serious charge. A careful examination of the case in the light of the fresh evidence led me to a conviction that the evidence originally tendered, even if absolutely truthful, was consistent with the innocence of the constable. The Inspector-General considered, and I agree, that the Court returned a true verdict on the evidence before it. But a new fact was brought to light, i.e., a certificate signed by two doctors, to the effect that the young woman concerned was a virgin many months after the events dealt with in the evidence. Briefly, all turned, in my opinion, on whether the action witnessed was an attempt at seduction or consistent with innocence. After consultation with the Inspector-General, he and I came to the conclusion that the more favourable 1499 interpretation was at least as probable as the interpretation placed on the evidence by the Court who had not the medical certificate before them. On my advice, after I had conferred with the Inspector-General on the import of the fresh evidence, the ex-constable was reinstated in the force on the 19th March by the Lord-Lieutenant.
§ MR. DILLONOn that statement I want to ask two Questions—(1) whether the fresh evidence brought forward was submitted to any tribunal before the Chief Secretary gave his decision; and (2) to point out that the Chief Secretary has not answered the very important part of the Question, "On what representation the case was reconsidered."
§ MR. WYNDHAMThe case was reconsidered because representations from certain quarters—it is quite immaterial from what quarters—were made to the effect that a certificate had been sent in signed by two doctors. This certificate alone may not in the first instance have been precisely evidence, but I conferred with those who advised me on the subject—namely, the Law Officers, and I came to the conclusion, and the Inspector-General came to the conclusion, that it put altogether another complexion on the whole facts previously stated. Then the hon. Member asks a further Question as to whether there was a tribunal. No, no tribunal. An inquiry is not a Court of Law.
§ MR. DILLONI ask leave to ask two further Questions: Whether the representations to which the hon. Member refers were representations made by Members of this House, and secondly, in reversing the decision of the Constabulary Court, why he did not consider it necessary to submit the evidence on which he reversed the decision to another Court of Inquiry.
§ MR. WYNDHAMI consider that those certificates of two respectable practitioners were sufficient reasons for reconsidering he whole case. I consider whether the representations came from Members of this House or other parties is quite immaterial. Many representations on various questions came 1500 to me from all quarters. I tak the whole responsibility for the decision, arrived at.
§ MR. DILLONI really must press the right hon. Gentleman for an Answer to a simple Question, namely, on what ground he did not refer the fresh evidence placed before him—which I decline to accept as evidence until it is examined— why he did not refer the allegations made to him, from whatever quarter, to a fresh Court of Inquiry before he reversed the decision of the first Court?
§ MR. WYNDHAMI have answered the hon. Member. I may be right or I may be wrong, I consider that the certificate sent in by the solicitor for Anderson and signed by two respectable practitioners, was a fact upon which I was quite competent to form an opinion.
§ MR. DILLONDid you see the practitioners and examine them?
§ MR. WYNDHAMIf the hon. Member can prove they do not exist and are bogus he can accuse me of an error of judgment. But I know they do exist.
§ MR. DILLONDid you see and examine them?
§ MR. WYNDHAMNo.
§ MR. WYNDHAMComplaints reached me—
§ *MR. SPEAKEROrder! The Question has been fully answered. Any fresh Questions should be put down.
§ MR. LUNDON (Limerick, E.)rose to put a further Question.
§ *MR. SPEAKEROrder,order! I have said the Question has been fully answered.
§ MR. LUNDONMy Question is very important.
§ *MR. SPEAKERI am not questioning that, but the Question on the Paper has been fully answered, and notice must be given of any further Questions.
§ MR. MACVEAGH (Down, S.)May I ask, arising out of the Answer of the Chief Secretary—
§ *MR. SPEAKERThe Question has been fully answered.
§ MR. MACVEAGHNo, Sir.
§ [The matter then dropped.]