LOOTING, TRIM. (Hansard, 16 June 1921)

§ 51. Major M. WOOD
asked the Chief Secretary whether Captain MacFie, late adjutant of the Auxiliary Division, Royal Irish Constabulary, was called as a witness at the trial of the cadets alleged to be implicated in the looting at Trim; and whether any statement was obtained from him before the trial?

§ Sir H. GREENWOOD
On the 18th March last an official letter was sent by the Irish Office to Captain MacFie at his last known address in the following terms: In order that the fullest possible information may be obtained in regard to the looting in Trim by members of N Company of the Auxiliary Division of the Royal Irish Constabulary the Irish Government are anxious to obtain a Summary of Evidence both from Brigadier-General Crozier and from yourself. I have therefore to request that you will be good enough to inform me that you will hold yourself in readiness to give that evidence at an early date. No reply was ever received to this letter. It is understood that Captain MacFie is abroad, but his exact whereabouts are not known.

§ 52. Major WOOD
asked the Chief Secretary whether he has seen a statement by General Crozier that he was never present at the taking of a summary of evidence against the cadets accused of complicity in the Trim looting; that he was asked to attend at the taking of such a summary on 23rd March, but found on his arrival that this was not a summary of evidence, since the accused were not present; that he found that he was merely called in to assist the military by throwing light on missing documents and exhibits, but was unable to state what had become of them since his first investigation of the case; that, on this occasion, he signed a statement to the effect that certain important documents and exhibits were then missing; and whether this statement is still in existence.

§ Sir H. GREENWOOD
A statement of the evidence which could have been given by General Crozier was taken. It could have been used in evidence. General Crozier was subpoenaed to give evidence at this trial but forwarded a medical certificate to the effect that his health was such that he could not travel to Dublin.

§ Major WOOD
Why did the right hon. Gentleman say a summary of evidence was taken, when, according to the definition of a summary of evidence, that was not the fact? Is he aware that a summary of evidence must be taken in the presence of the accused and that therefore no summary of evidence was taken at all? May I have an answer?

§ Mr. SPEAKER
The question on the Paper contains the phrase, "a summary of evidence," and that accounts for the nature of the reply.

§ Major WOOD
"A summary of evidence" was the term used by the right hon. Gentleman in answer to the previous question, and that is a term used in the Manual of Military Law. May I now have an answer to my question?

§ Sir H. GREENWOOD
I accept the definition of the Manual of Military Law.

§ Major WOOD
Then, why is it the right hon. Gentleman says that a summary of evidence was taken when, according to the definition, it was not taken, because none of the accused were there?

§ Sir H. GREENWOOD
I have en deavoured to answer the question. I say that a statement of the evidence that could have been given by General Crozier was taken. That is my answer. General Crozier also was subpoenaed to give evidence at the trial.

§ Major WOOD
Why did the right hon. Gentleman say "a summary of evidence" before?

§ Mr. SPEAKER
In the right hon. Gentleman's answer now he uses the term "statement of evidence."

§ Major WOOD
May I ask why he changes it now when he is found out?

§ Mr. MacVEAGH
He cooked the answer.

§ 53. Major M. WOOD
asked the Chief Secretary whether he is aware that during March the evidence and documents relating to the Trim looting were handed over by the police to the military authorities for investigation; that these were returned to the police on 23rd or 24th March with a statement that they were now useless owing to loss and deterioration of evidence; that Major Wake, of the Auxiliary Division, proceeded to Trim on 24th March and obtained further evidence; whether he was immediately after called on to resign; and whether the evidence taken by him was used at the trial and himself called as a witness?

§ Sir H. GREENWOOD
The evidence relating to the Trim case was handed over to the military authorities by the police, and was returned when no longer required. It was not accompanied by any statement such as that alleged. As regards the rest of the question, I would 587 refer the hon. and gallant Member to the replies I gave to the hon. and gallant Member for Newcastle, East (Major Barnes), on 2nd June and 9th June.