I asked the Minister for Justice a question to-day with reference to the arrest of Christopher Domigan, of Finglas Bridge. I want to make quite clear to the Minister that my object in raising this question is not to make any unnecessary attack on his Department but merely to vindicate the character of this young man. To the best of my knowledge, I have never met this young man. To the best of my knowledge, he does not belong to any political organisation, so that it cannot be said that I am raising this question in order to make political capital out of it. In point of fact, I was approached, not by Domigan, or by his people, but by some residents of Finglas who are very much concerned about the arrest of this young man. I want also to state, at the outset, that I have since found one statement I made in my question to-day to be incorrect. Since I got the Minister's reply to-day, I visited Finglas and I found that I had made a mistake in saying that the police broke into the house in which Domigan is living. The Minister's answer in that respect is quite correct. It was Mrs. Domigan who broke open the door.
I think it necessary to refer to the first arrest of this man in order to give the history of the case. About two years ago, this young man was arrested for cattle stealing, which took place somewhere outside Finglas. He was arrested, I am informed, on the evidence of a man who was locally known as "the liar." I do not intend to mention his name. If the Minister wishes, I will give his name to him privately. I am also informed that this man, on whose evidence Domigan was previously arrested, has since been convicted of stealing. Domigan at that time was tried at Swords, Kilmainham and Green Street, on the charge of cattle stealing. Bail was refused, although at least two prominent business people in Finglas were quite prepared to give large bail for this young man. He was detained at that time for something like three months. Eventually, when he was brought before a judge and jury at Green Street the judge, I understand, on the evidence adduced, gave a direction to the jury and there was an acquittal. There is one point I want to stress; it is one reason why I desire to give publicity to this case. The Minister will, I think, see the justice of what I say. When this man was tried at Swords and when the charge was brought against him of cattle stealing, great publicity was given to the case in the Press. When the case eventually came before a judge and jury at Green Street, the Pressmen probably had lost interest in it, and I am informed that not a single report appeared showing that the man had been vindicated.
The next case in which Domigan was involved took place at Easter. A local resident reported to the police that a certain sum of money had been stolen from his house at Finglas. This gentleman, when he reported the matter to the police, was asked for certain information. As a result, he gave the names of all those who were in his employment, and of all those who had visited his place of business prior to the disappearance of the money. I am informed that the names of about eight persons, including that of Domigan, were given to the police. Domigan had visited this gentleman's house the day before in order to borrow a whitening brush, which he received, I am informed, without having entered the kitchen or any portion of the premises. Domigan's place of business was searched, and then, although no trace of the money was found, he was arrested. After his arrest the police came to the house of Domigan's mother, and she informed them that her son lived in a cottage close by and brought them to that cottage. The door was locked. The mother had not got the key, and she asked the police then if they had a warrant. They said "No." She then said that she would not allow them to enter the place without a warrant. I am informed that the police asked her if she was looking for trouble, and that they so terrified the woman that she broke open the door. A search was made there, and no trace whatever of the money was found.
The Minister, in his reply, said the money was not found, and "as further evidence was not available, Domigan was released." I should like to ask the Minister if it is usual to arrest a man first and then investigate the case, or if there was any real point in arresting this man, considering that the Minister's officers could have carried out the search without the knowledge of Domigan, even though he were left at his employer's place of business. I should like to point out to the Minister the great injury that follows such procedure. Here is a man who has been charged with a serious offence and then, when information is given about another crime, not only is his own home visited, but also the premises of his employer. I should like to ask if there are many employers who would retain a man in their employment under those circumstances. I think it is the best testimony that could be given to Domigan's character that, in spite of the fact that this young man was kept three months in prison on a serious charge and was subsequently arrested in connection with the disappearance of money, he was still retained in the employment of a local man who knew all the details of the case. The people of the district who approached me are anxious to know if the Minister has any information whatsoever which would go to show that this man is a criminal. If not, they want to know why it is that he has been arrested twice—first of all on the information of a man who was known locally as "the liar," and who has himself since been convicted of stealing, and secondly, arrested on no particular evidence whatsoever, because the man from whose premises the money was stolen was very indignant that Domigan was in any way implicated in that particular affair. My only object in bringing forward this case is in order to satisfy local people and the parents of this young man that his character has been publicly vindicated.
