Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 19 Feb 1925

Vol. 10 No. 5

QUESTION ON THE ADJOURNMENT. - ARMS FOR FISHERY INSPECTORS AND POLICE.

Mr. JOHNSON

I gave notice that I would call attention on the Adjournment to a matter affecting particularly the fisheries of the River Shannon, and the practice of the inspectors of fisheries there carrying guns, and to ascertain if possible what are the powers and what is the authority of such persons to carry guns and use them, and similarly with regard to police carrying guns and using them in attempts to prevent the escape of prisoners. In the case of the fisheries, the question I asked the Minister this morning was whether the inspectors of fisheries on the Shannon have licences to carry revolvers, and, if so, whether this involved authorisation to fire on men suspected of poaching salmon from the river. The Minister said that inspectors have licences to carry revolvers. He went on to say that it is not for him to decide in any particular case whether or not the inspector was justified in using his revolver. I take it from that that the licence is an official one, and that it is not a licence to the individual as a citizen to carry a revolver, but a licence to the inspector, as such, to carry a revolver. I think it is important that we should know what the position is regarding police and inspectors of fisheries in this matter.

The reason why this matter has been raised by me is that I have had complaints in respect of one inspector named Murphy, and latterly another inspector named McCormick, who, having revolvers under licence, do not hesitate to shoot, following Mr. Balfour's Mitchelstown admonition. My informants made quite clear that the men concerned were, in fact, poaching, and the water bailiff or inspector of fisheries appeared on the scene, and failing to catch them, they being in the river, the inspector being ashore, he immediately fired. This has happened on several occasions, the last occasion being, I think, on the 10th February. Most of us have been reading of the incident in Newry, and I think it would be a calamity if a similar incident happened in Limerick or Dublin. I think it is necessary to know what is the position of those men. Is it allowable for policemen or anybody acting as a peace officer to use a gun on failure to arrest, and if it is not allowable, is it the duty of the aggrieved person to institute a prosecution, as the Minister suggested in his answer this afternoon? If it is allowable that the police officer on failure to arrest is entitled to shoot, then, I think, we have a right to consider whether it is a desirable thing to allow it to continue.

I had a visit some weeks ago from a young man who raised the question of a similar kind in respect to an incident in Rathmines. He and a friend were approached by two persons in plain clothes and halted. They demanded that my informants should halt and submit to search. One of them halted and the other ran. There had been a number of armed robberies in the city and surroundings about that time and the young man ran as fast as he could to the police station. As he did not halt, the reply was a revolver shot. He believed that the men in plain clothes were armed robbers, and he ran immediately to the police station to inform the police and in the station met the plain clothes policeman and with him the other man as a prisoner. My anxiety arises from the doubt as to what would have happened if the young man had been killed by the revolver shot, and whether it is a justifiable state of things that we should have plain clothes policemen free to shoot at civilians who refuse to answer the call of an armed civilian, as far as his knowledge goes, to halt. That is the case I am raising in regard to the arming of police. In this case of poaching on the river Shannon there has been a continuous attack upon the poachers by the armed inspectors. There will be reprisals if any damage is done and I am putting to the Minister this question: is there no other way of preventing poaching except by shooting at the poachers? Is it intended that the method of preventing poaching should be by killing the poachers? I have no need to ask any more questions. The thing is as plain as a pikestaff. These people, so far as my information goes—at least my informant frankly admits—were poaching, and it is therefore the duty of the peace officer to prosecute them by some means or other. I would like to know from the Minister whether it is the law, and if he intends to maintain it as the law, that an inspector of fishery, water bailiff, or whatever he may be called, has a right under the law to shoot at poachers at sight.

MINISTER for JUSTICE (Mr. O'Higgins)

I have certain evidence here of the absence of hesitation to shoot in connection with salmon poaching. Within the last year there have been four cases of firing by poachers on members of the Gárda Síochána. There was a case at Doon, Co. Limerick, on the 13th November; at Coonmore, Co. Tipperary, on the 17th November; at Banteer, Co. Cork, on the 17th November; and at Kanturk, on the 15th November. At the risk of wearying Deputies I propose to read the reports.

This is a report from a sergeant to his superintendent in Kanturk:—

I beg to report that about 1.15 a.m. on the morning of the 17th instant I observed a light on the River Blackwater, just as I was about to retire for the night. I at once had every available man in the barracks got ready to proceed to the spot. We left the barracks about 1.30 a.m. It is about 100 yards or so from the barracks. When we got down to the river we lay in ambush waiting for the men to get on to the road, and could see four men with spears in the river and one man with a torch. There were about sixteen other men on the banks also, some of whom had spears. As we lay in ambush, two men, who were in advance of the rest, came on to the road, and when they discovered us they stepped back and gave us a command to get back and discharged a shot at us. As we did not obey, a second shot was discharged, and a Guard states it passed close to his ear. We retired a few yards and could hear someone give an order to the effect, "All hands to the banks," and all made a charge headed by the man with the torch, who raced through the field with the evident intention of surrounding us. A third shot was discharged. All were apparently revolver shots. Owing to the demeanour of the crowd and being unarmed, I had no option but to order the men back to the Arus. I could still observe the light on the river from the Arus, and when the light was halfway between the Arus and the Railway Bridge, I took two Guards and went under cover towards the railway line to lie in ambush there to see if we could identify any of the poachers. Just as we reached the line we were discovered by one of the party, who let a roar for us to go back, and he also fired a shot at us and gave chase through the fields. The majority of those on the bank seemed to be armed.

It was not possible for us to identify any of the poachers, and inquiries are being pursued and any further information will be reported in due course. From information received I believe that every year men come armed from the Donoughmore district, and I believe that the people in the present instance came from the same place.

Another report from a Sergeant in Rathcoole, Kanturk, says:—

I beg to state that I was on patrol on 15/11/'24, from 6.35 p.m. to 11.15 p.m. I was accompanied by Guard ——. It was a moonlight night but a heavy fog prevailed. When we were coming back the road from Shanakeel we saw the rays of a torch on the river Owebane, at Bolomore Bridge. The Bolomore Bridge is on the country road, where the Shanakeel Road joins the county road. The light was within five or six yards of the bridge when we got there. On reaching the bridge we saw two men on the road with service rifles in their hands, and five or six other men walking the river with the light and spears. The two men on the road wore masks, I could not say if the other men were masked or not. We were quite close to the two men on the road before they saw us as we walked along by the hedge on the roadside. One was watching the party in the river and the other was looking in the direction from which we were coming. They were both standing together. One was about 5 ft. 9 in. or 5 ft. 10 in. in height, stout build, inclined to be drooped. The other, who was looking over the wall of the bridge at the party in the river was about 5 ft. 6 in. or 5 ft. 7 in. in height, good build and military appearance. When the taller of the two saw us he nudged the other with his gun, and they both faced us with the rifles held at the ready. They did not speak a word but stood motionless facing us. We could see the rifles and the masks plainly with the light of the torch. We could not get near the party in the river except we crossed the bridge and we were afraid to go too near the fellows with the rifles, so we withdrew and returned to barracks. We mentioned the matter to nobody for a few days expecting that the party themselves or their friends might relate the facts of the case in the locality. The matter was not reported to the Superintendent until 18/11/'24 as the case presented no tangible feature, and I thought we might hear something about it from the people of the district if we waited. The Gárdai have made several enquiries from different people in the sub-district about the case, but so far without success.

The next report is from Co. Tipperary, and is as follows:—

I beg to report that on the 17th instant, Sergeant —— and Gárda —— were on patrol at about 10 p.m. at Coonmore, Rear Cross sub-district, and noticed a light on the Bilboa river, about one mile distant. They went in the direction of the light, and approaching within a clear view, they observed about ten men poaching. Some were in the water. The majority had spears, and one man was "burning" the water. The Gárdaí went into ambush in order to identify some of the men if possible, but they were unable to do so. The party "fishing" were kept under observation until about 1 a.m., when they moved further up the river. The Gardaí were about to follow them when a shot was fired at about sixty yards' range. The Gárdaí observed two men in the direction from which the shot was fired. Sergeant —— did not hear any shot going near him, but Gárda —— says some grains went over their heads. The Gárdaí next retired to the road a short distance away, and observing a light in a house they approached it. They kept it under observation, and after some time they heard footsteps in the yard. They then went towards the house, and saw two men, one the owner and occupant, ——, whom they identified, and the other, ——, his brother, who does not reside there. On seeing the Gárdaí both men ran through fields, taking different directions. The Gárdaí pursued and came up with —— hiding in a hedge. They detained him and brought him to the barracks. His face was blackened, and on him was found four shot-gun cartridges and a candle. His trousers, leggings, boots and socks were wet through. On being asked where his shot-gun was (he holds a firearms licence), he said it was in his shop. The Gárdaí returned to the house, but he was still absent from home (3 a.m.). They found —— shot-gun there, which they seized. It smelt of recently discharged gunpowder, and the barrel was dirty. —— was charged and brought before a special court at Nenagh on the 18/11/24, when he was remanded on trial, to appear at Newport District Court on the 26th instant.

Mr. JOHNSON

Was the charge dismissed?

Mr. O'HIGGINS

I could not say. I have not got the complete report.

Mr. JOHNSON

It was then.

Mr. O'HIGGINS

There is a fourth case from Doon, Co. Limerick, of the same tenor. I mentioned that simply to show that in the case of salmon poaching, as in the case of the poteen traffic, people engaged in that, presumably, profitable and, beyond question, illegal occupation, are prepared to put up a fight in defence of their industry. People have fought the Guards in defence of the poteen traffic, and these salmon poachers, as will be seen from examination of these four cases from different parts of the country, are apparently prepared to do the same.

I have no particular responsibility for inspectors of fisheries. They are not appointed by me. As far as I can see they are appointed by Boards of Conservators. It is not by inspectors of fisheries these men have been allowed permits, but simply because, in particular cases, and on application to the chief superintendent of the area, the chief superintendent was presumably satisfied that these men were in very grave danger by the nature of their duties. It is, therefore, not as inspectors of fisheries, but as ordinary private citizens, able to show sufficient cause for it, that permits have been given to particular inspectors. With that explanation I think the Deputy ought to be satisfied with the terms of the reply I gave him this morning.

That exactly states the position. I have no judicial functions and it is not for me to say in a particular case whether the inspector of fisheries wrongly used a revolver which he was allowed to have, or not. I read the police reports. These cases of firing on the Guards by salmon poachers show the Deputy that the inspector may well have been justified in the use of his revolver. I know nothing of the circumstances. In any case it is not my function to judge him. The fact that, in four places, salmon poachers have fired on members of the Gárda Síochána who were endeavouring to interrupt their occupation shows that the position of an inspector of fisheries is not an entirely safe, nor an entirely enviable one, and that there may have been, possibly, a set of circumstances which justified the use of the revolver. The inspector, presumably, before being given a permit for the revolver was able to satisfy the Gárdaí that such a permission was necessary or advisable in his case for his proper protection.

Mr. JOHNSON

I will advise my correspondents to lodge an information with the police, and I hope the police will take whatever action is necessary on that information. Will the Minister give us some light on the position of a policeman in the city who arrests a person, or attempts to arrest a person, and fails? Is it his right, and is it his instruction that he should shoot?

Mr. O'HIGGINS

Will the Deputy give me a specific case?

Mr. JOHNSON

I thought I had given a case fairly clearly. The case occurred in Rathgar. A young man who is in a bank in the City of Dublin was with a friend, and, when passing along the street, they were accosted by two men, in plain clothes, and told to hold up their hands. My informants assumed, as they had a right to assume, that these were footpads or armed robbers. One of them was held, and the other ran. One of the footpads, shall I call them, or presumed footpads, called out "Halt!" The young man refused to halt and ran straight to the police station. On refusing to halt he was fired at. Now, my position is that I want to know what is the authority in such cases, and what kind of discretion is given to the policeman to fire. In such a case, what would be the view of the Minister if he had to face the kind of criticism which the police in Newry had to face in similar circumstances?

Mr. O'HIGGINS

I am reluctant to accept and pronounce on what can, of course, only be an ex-parte statement of a particular case. The Deputy knows that members of the Metropolitan Force, who will shortly be merged in the Gárda Síochána, are armed.

Mr. JOHNSON

It is the first time I knew it.

Mr. O'HIGGINS

Members of the detective branch. Surely the Deputy does not say that it is the first time he knew they were armed?

Mr. JOHNSON

I knew that the detective force was armed.

Mr. O'HIGGINS

That is a necessary evil. I wish we had a state of affairs in the City where it would not be necessary at all to have men armed, but the criminal is armed himself, and there is a good deal of crime in the country in which recourse is had to the use of arms. The bank robbery is almost invariably accompanied by the use of arms, and other forms of robbery and violent crime are accompanied by arms. It was necessary then to have here in the capital a section of the police armed. It will be necessary, following upon the amalgamation of the two forces, to have a section of the amalgamated force armed. It is proposed to have a detective branch of a strength, possibly, of 200 men functioning throughout the area of the jurisdiction of the Free State. The greatest possible care will be taken in the selection of the personnel of that branch. Men of integrity and known discretion and level-headedness will be selected for the work, but you cannot have cast iron safeguards, and you cannot lay down an absolutely hard and fast line from the very nature of the case. If the Deputy asks me, if a man robs a bank with arms and is escaping, are the police entitled to fire on him——

Mr. JOHNSON

I ask the Minister if the man has no sign of arms, and a shot being fired, has the policeman carrying arms authority to shoot?

Mr. O'HIGGINS

The police know and have been warned that bank robbery is not a capital offence and they do not shoot. So far as I know, there is no single case where they have fired, where it was not necessary to fire, or where even there was an alternative course to firing. As a matter of fact the discretion and responsibility with which these men carry out their duties is a source of constant admiration both to the general public and myself. I know many cases in which men, even at a considerable risk to themselves, have refrained from firing in circumstances in which men more excitable or less courageous might have resorted to the use of their weapons. I find it difficult to give the Deputy the kind of answer which, I presume, he would regard as entirely satisfactory, because it is very much a case in which a number of circumstances count and have to be judged, and it is impossible to put a two-foot rule to the thing and say: "It shall be thus and not otherwise."

As regards the case which the Deputy quotes, presuming his recital of the facts to be absolutely accurate, I would make this comment upon it: That certainly if members of the police force found it necessary to hold up a man in the street, that hold up should not have been carried out without a full and frank statement to the man as to who they were and what their authority was. The man should not be left under any illusion or misapprehension that he had to do with footpads or robbers. If they held up the man in their capacity as policemen they should have told him it was in their capacity as policemen.

Mr. JOHNSON

I suppose they have some authority to show that they are policemen?

Mr. O'HIGGINS

Yes, they have.

The Dáil adjourned at 8.45 p.m. until 12 noon on Friday.