§ MR. SLOANTo ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that Thomas Rice, of Poyntzpass, county Armagh, publican, reported Constable Harte, of the Royal Irish Constabulary, for being drunk on his licensed premises on 25th December, 1905, and that a charge was preferred against the constable founded on this report, with the result that Constable Harte was held to be not guilty of the offence with which he was charged, whilst the charges against the constable by Thomas Rice were held to have been made through vindictive motives, the constable having entered the licensed premises solely for the purpose of enforcing the provisions of the Licensing Acts; and whether, seeing that Constable Harte subsequently applied to the authorities for permission to bring an action against the Rice family for false imprisonment and slander, he will explain why such permission was refused; whether, seeing that it is usual for the police authorities to pay the expenses incurred by the police in defending themselves against charges arising out of the execution of their duty, he will say why Constable Harte's application to be re-imbursed his expenses and solicitor's costs was refused; will he say whether any prosecution has been brought against Rice for obstructing the constable while in the execution of his duty; if not, will he explain why; what steps will be
— See (4) Debates, clv., 939.916 taken that members of the Constabulary will not be again treated in a similar manner; and if the constable's application for leave to take an action for false imprisonment will be further considered.(Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The Inspector General informs me that a disciplinary court of inquiry was held in reference to a complaint of Mr. Rice that Constable Harte was drunk while on duty. The constable was acquitted. He had applied for and obtained permission to employ, at his own expense, a solicitor to defend him at the inquiry. Expenses so incurred cannot, under the regulations of the force, be defrayed from public funds. Constable Harte subsequently applied for permission to take legal proceedings against Mr. Rice for false imprisonment and slander, but the Inspector General refused permission, as he did not consider the case to be one which would justify a departure from the ordinary and salutary rule, that members of the force should not take civil actions for matters arising out of the performance of their duty. There was no necessity for prosecuting Mr. Rice for obstructing the constable while in the discharge of his duty. The Inspector General sees no reason for re-considering the application of the constable.