§ 65. Mr. GINNELLasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether the stipendiary magistrate who presided at the Petty Sessions at Cahirciveen, when the police inspector was allowed to accuse witnesses of having received German gold, was himself an ex-policeman; in view of the purpose and effect of the accusation, whether the inspector has been required to substantiate it; and will he say under what law or rule police inspectors in Ireland are allowed to make accusations of that character which they are unable to substantiate?
§ The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Birrell)The resident magistrate who presided at the Petty Sessions at Cahirciveen on the occasion referred to was formerly a district inspector in the Royal Irish Constabulary. The answer to 369 the second part of the question is in the negative. As I have already stated, in framing the questions put by him in cross-examination of witnesses for the defence, the district inspector who was in charge of the prosecution was guided by information in his possession, and he was entitled, on the basis of that information, to put such questions to the witnesses as were likely, in his opinion, to throw light on their credibility.
§ Mr. GINNELLWill the right hon. Gentleman answer that part of the question with reference to this officer being called upon to substantiate his charges?
§ Mr. BIRRELLNo, Sir. I am not called upon.
§ Mr. GINNELLI mean the officer referred to in the question. Has he been called upon to substantiate his charge?
§ Mr. BIRRELLNo, Sir.
§ Mr. GINNELLDoes the right hon. Gentleman consider that the correct and normal method of administering justice?
§ Mr. BIRRELLCertainly. He had information before him which, in his opinion, justified him in putting the question.
§ Mr. GINNELLHe had none.