HC Deb 08 May 1919 vol 115 cc1077-80
21 and 22. Mr. EDWARD KELLY

asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland (1) whether, in view of the allegation by the police authorities that the boy Timothy Connors was removed by the police to the Royal Irish Constabulary Depot, Dublin, with a view to his personal safety, he can explain how the danger to Timothy Connors' personal safety disappeared on that day on which notice of motion for a writ of habeas corpus to produce the boy was served on the Inspector-General of the Royal Irish Constabulary;(2) whether the opinion of the Law Officers was obtained before the boys, John Connors, Timothy Connors, and Matthew Hogan, were removed by the police from their homes with a view, as alleged, of securing their personal safety; under what Statute or Regulation of legal sanction does the Crown claim to remove from the custody of parents, without the consent, knowledge, or approval of the parents, children of tender years; and has the Crown previously taken such action under similar circumstances?

Mr. MacVEAGH

asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether his atten- tion has been called to the circumstances of the abduction by the police of a child of eleven years, Timothy Connors, from Greenane, county Tipperary, to Dublin; whether he is aware that on notice of issue by the High Court of a writ of habeas corpus, the child was surreptitiously returned to his parents, and that an affidavit was then sworn by the assistant Inspector-General of the Royal Irish Constabulary that the child was not in his custody or charge; whether he is aware that the Lord Chief Justice severely censured the affidavit as lacking in candour and disrespectful to the Court; whether he can say how such conduct can be reconciled with the statement that the child was arrested in the interests of justice; what action has been taken by the Government in respect of the affidavit sworn by the Assistant Inspector-General; whether the Assistant Inspector-General is still in office; and whether the costs of the legal proceedings will be defrayed by the Assistant Inspector-General or by the taxpayer?

Mr. SAMUELS

In the course of inquiry as to the brutal murder of two policemen at Tipperary in January last, the local constabulary brought the boy Timothy Connors to the police barrack for interrogation. In face of organised intimidation exercised against persons suspected of having, or giving information as to the crime, the boy was removed to Dublin by the police in his own interests, as well as in the interests of justice. The advisability of that course was made clear by the issue of posters warning policemen that they would be shot at sight and threatening civilians giving information that they would suffer a similar fate.

The boy's parents were not refused information as to his whereabouts, and he received all possible care and attention in Dublin. Apart from the issue, of the writ of habeas corpus, it had been decided to return the boy to his parents on their request, and to place full responsibility for his safety on them.

Two other boys similarly detained had already been returned on these conditions The sending back of the boy Connors took place after the issue of notice of motion for the writ, and was not done surreptitiously. The Lord Chief Justice made his order and gave costs against the Inspector-General, Royal Irish Constabulary, not because of circumstances attending the taking possession of the boy, but because His Lordship considered the action of the authorities in depriving themselves of the custody of the boy was not an answer to the application for the writ. The Assistant Inspector-General is still in office, and it is intended to retain him. He is a thoroughly efficient and trustworthy officer. There was no misconduct or bad faith on the part of the police, and it is proposed to pay the costs out of State funds. The law officers were consulted in the matter throughout. The boys were not detained under any statutory power, but in exercise of primary duty of the executive to protect them from assassination as a result of their interrogation by the police.

I would refer to the reply given to the previous question on this subject by the hon. Member for East Donegal on the 29th ultimo.

Mr. MacVEAGH

Can the Attorney-General tell me the date on which the children were kidnapped, and the date on which this placard was issued?

Mr. SAMUELS

The children were not kidnapped.

Mr. MacVEAGH

We call it kidnapped.

Mr. SAMUELS

The date on which the children went to Tipperary Barracks—

Mr. MacVEAGH

Went, or were brought?

Mr. SAMUELS

Or were brought, was 11th February, in the case of Timothy Connors. In the case of the other boy, it was 19th February. As to this notice, I which I will shew to my hon. Friend if he wishes, I cannot tell the exact date, but it was most extensively circulated, and I am I sure if he saw it he would thoroughly concur with our authorities in their action.

Mr. MacVEAGH

Is it not a fact that this placard was not issued until after the children were abducted?

Mr. SAMUELS

The placard, which I have in my hand, states—

Mr. MacVEAGH

I want the date of it.

Mr. SAMUELS

It is not dated.

Mr. MacVEAGH

Was it after the abduction?

Mr. SAMUELS

I gather not, for it evidently refers to the boys— Whereas it has come to our knowledge that some men and boys have been arrested—

Mr. MacVEAGH

That is the point.

Mr. SAMUELS

(continuing): and whereas there are a few Irishmen who have sunk to such depths of degradation that they are prepared to give information about their neighbours and fellow-countrymen to the police. and so on. Any policeman found in such areas on and after—day of February, 1919, will be deemed to have forfeited his life.…Civilians who give information to the police or soldiery, especially such information as is of a serious character, if convicted will be executed, namely, shot or hanged

Mr. MacVEAGH

Does not the opening sentence prove that the children had already been arrested at the time that the placard was issued? Is it the Attorney-General's defence now that these children were taken away by the police in anticipation of a placard about which the police knew nothing? I want to ask another very important question arising out of that. Does he not know perfectly well that that placard was put up by two policemen?

Mr. SAMUELS

I resent that most strongly.

Mr. MacVEAGH

Well, it is true—an absolute concoction.