§ 38. Sir C. YATEasked the Home Secretary whether he is now in a position to say why it was that in the prosecution of Hogan and Cooley, sentenced for theft of machine guns and rifles from Chelsea and Windsor barracks, the evidence implicating Fitzgerald was not made available when the matter was before the stipendiary magistrate; and whether, in view of the remarks of the judge at the trial at the Central Criminal Court, the Director of Public Prosecutions will now proceed against Fitzgerald for his alleged share in the offence charged against the two men above mentioned?
§ Mr. SHORTTAll evidence then available was put before the magistrates when Fitzgerald was charged, and, as I stated in this House on the 14th ultimo, no fresh evidence has been obtained, since Fitzgerald was discharged by the magistrate, of such a nature as to justify the renewal of proceedings against him. The judge before whom Hogan and Cooley were 1062 tried reconsidered the view he expressed in the first instance, and agreed that the proper course had been taken.
§ Sir C. YATEConsidering that the Secretary of State for War on 15th December gave an assurance that all the evidence in the case would be brought out, why was not Sergeant Roche's second and complete statement brought forward with the original statement in the Police Court?
§ Mr. SHORTTAll evidence was brought forward which is admissible as evidence in a Court of Justice. What the hon. Baronet refers to is not evidence.
§ Sir C. YATEWhy is it not evidence? Was not the man's confession evidence?
§ Mr. SHORTTIt was not Fitzgerald's confession.
§ Sir C. YATENo, it was Sergeant Roche's confession. Why was it not brought forward?