HC Deb 28 May 1906 vol 158 cc42-3
MR. SWIFT MACNEILL

To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that a complaint was preferred against Constable Brady, stationed at Pettigo, for assaulting a young lady by pushing her rudely and deliberately off the footpath in the presence of two other ladies, who are prepared to corroborate her statement of the assault; whether in consequence of this complaint, Mr. Kingston, D. I. Inspector at Kesh, came to Pettigo, for the purpose of holding an inquiry, that he never, when at Pettigo, saw the young lady, the victim of the assault, or any of the witnesses to it who were in the town, and prepared to answer any inquiries he might make, but left Pettigo after a visit to the constabulary barrack, the dispensary, and the hotel, and that subsequently a communication was received from the inspector general that the complaint, after a very careful inquiry, was regarded as frivolous; what, if any, explanation is there for Mr. Kingston's conduct in not making any inquiries with reference to an occurrence he was directed to investigate from the young lady who complained of the assault, or from the ladies who were prepared to corroborate her statement; and whether any, or, if so, what steps will be taken for the further investigation of this matter.

(Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The Inspector General informs me that on 13th September 1905 a complaint to the effect mentioned was received. The complainant stated that his letter was written in strict confidence. The complainant did not give the names of the young ladies in question. The District Inspector was directed to inquire into the matter, but, in accordance with the complainant's request for confidence, no names were given to that officer. The District Inspector made all possible inquiries, and reported the result, which was that no grounds for action against the constable could be discovered. Subsequently the complainant and the lady herself renewed the complaint, but without any stipulation as to confidence, and the County Inspector was thereupon directed to investigate the complaint. This he did, and, in company with the District Inspector, interviewed the three young ladies referred to and other persons, and found that there was no ground for the complaint. The complainant was in the first instance informed by the Inspector General that the proper course would be for the person aggrieved to prosecute the constable, when the matter could be fully investigated on oath. It is not intended to further investigate the case.