§ Mr. MULDOONasked the Attorney-General for Ireland whether Mr. Anthony Carroll, Crown Solicitor for Cork, obtained his directions as to a prosecution instituted against Patrick Hanley, on a charge of forcible possession; whether those directions were that the prosecution should be abandoned, as there was no evidence against the accused; whether Mr. Carroll had acted for the landlord against the accused in civil proceedings relating to the subject-matter; whether, when he found himself unable to utilise the Crown in the criminal matter, he became prosecutor himself and engaged counsel and solicitors to prosecute; whether it is intended to allow the conviction, so obtained, to stand; and whether Mr. Carroll has been allowed to offer to Hanley terms in Cork Gaol?
§ The ATTORNEY-GENERAL for IRELAND (Mr. Redmond Barry)My directions in this case were not that the prosecution against the accused should be abandoned, but that it should be left in the hands of the private complainant who had instituted it. Mr. Carroll, I am informed, did act as solicitor for the landlord in the ejectment proceedings taken against the accused, but he never was the prosecutor in the criminal matter, and he took no part in the prosecution beyond retaining, as solicitor and agent for the complainant, an independent solicitor to conduct the proceedings. In submitting the case to me for directions, Mr. Carroll acted in the regular course of his duty, 1321 and in doing so he made no indirect use whatever of his position as Crown Solicitor. Mr. Carroll had no communication with Hanley in Cork Gaol. In the circumstances I see no reason to question the propriety of the conviction.