On Wednesday last I asked the Minister for Justice to state under what circumstances and on what grounds was the release from prison ordered of Patrick Clerkin, O'Rahilly Street, Cavan, who was convicted and sentenced to three years' penal servitude in March, 1928, for conspiracy and possession of arms and whether the Minister proposes taking any action as to releasing the other three prisoners, viz., Michael Reilly, Patrick Corr and Bernard McPhillips convicted and sentenced for the same offence.
The Minister replied: Patrick Clerkin was convicted on the 17th February, 1928, of aiding and abetting persons to have possession of firearms and of conspiracy and was sentenced to three years' penal servitude. He was released on licence on the 7th August, 1929, under the prerogative of mercy in response to a petition. It is not usual to state the reasons for which the prerogative of mercy is exercised and I think it would be undesirable to depart from that practice, but in this particular case to avoid misunderstanding I may say that the following were the considerations which moved me to advise that mercy should be shown to Patrick Clerkin: I was amply satisfied that Clerkin had no personal interest in the enterprise and that he was not aware that firearms were to be used. He lent his car to the other conspirators. I have no reason to believe that he knew anything about the firearms and he was not in the car with the others when the firearms were found by the police. He had served 18 months in prison and having regard to all the circumstances of the case I came to the conclusion that he had been sufficiently punished. In the case of the other 3 prisoners mentioned in whose possession or under whose control the firearms were found I do not propose to take any action.
The reply of the Minister shows that he did not know the facts. As is usual with the Minister, his reply is evasive and, in my opinion, a complete wriggle. I would like to compare a portion of the Minister's reply with what was said by the Judge before he passed sentence. Before doing so, I would like to refer to the circumstances of the case as they are known to me. Patrick Clerkin is an ex-officer of the National Army. Two of the other prisoners are ex-internees. Clerkin was employed by the Cavan County Council as a supervisor of machinery at £35/- per week. Two of the other prisoners, Corr and McPhillips were ordinary workmen employed by the Cavan County Council. Corr worked in the yard over which Clerkin was supervisor. The Minister stated he was amply satisfied that Clerkin had no personal interest in the enterprise. The circumstances in this case, I think, go to show that Clerkin asked these men, Corr and McPhillips, to go in his car to the town of Bailieborough where the occurrence is supposed to have taken place. The Minister states he is satisfied Clerkin had no personal interest in the enterprise, that he was not aware firearms were being used. That is the opinion of the Minister. This is the opinion expressed by the Judge when he was passing sentence: "He believed that Clerkin had been in fact the ringleader but that all four were guilty." In this case I want to show and prove to the Minister that this is a case where the ringleader has been released because of the fact that he was an ex-officer of the National Army, while the other three dupes are to be kept in prison because they had not the same connections.
Night after night questions are raised here with reference to the Department over which the Minister presides, and time and again we are faced with the wriggling of the Minister. He always tells us that there is a statement from the Civic Guards and that he has no reason to disbelieve the statement. Here is a case in which one of his own judges, appointed by him and sanctioned by the Executive Council, in coming to his decision says he believes that Clerkin was the ringleader but that all four were guilty. What other evidence has been submitted since then to the Minister that has led him to come to the conclusion that Clerkin had no connection at all, as he says, with this attempted enterprise? I think the Minister will agree that the relations of Corr, McPhillips and Reilly contribute their share in the taxation which goes to pay the Minister his salary.