asked the Minister for Justice if he will state why Christopher Domigan, of Finglas Bridge, was arrested on Easter Saturday last at the house of his employer, and detained in Mountjoy for some hours; and if he is aware that it is alleged that members of the Detective Division, accompanied by uniformed police, broke into and searched, without producing any warrant, his mother's house and also searched the house of his employer; and if he will state the authority for these actions; and further, whether, as this man was previously subjected to the same treatment, the Minister is prepared to have the case investigated in order to prevent a recurrence.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - A Finglas Arrest.
The facts of the case referred to in the Deputy's question are as follows: On the 18th April last a complaint was made to the Gárda Síochána at Mountjoy Station by a gentleman who lives near Finglas Bridge that certain moneys had been stolen that day from his residence. As a result of the preliminary investigations of the police, suspicion fell upon Christopher Domigan, and on the 19th April the police went to the residence of his employer and, with the permission of his employer's wife, searched certain outhouses for the stolen money. This search proved abortive. Domigan was arrested and brought to Mountjoy Station at 10.45 a.m., and in the meantime the police visited the residence of his mother. They told her that they were making inquiries in connection with the larceny and she brought them to a cottage where her son, Christopher, slept. As she had not the key of the cottage in her possession she forced the door and told the police that they were at liberty to look for the missing money. The money was not found, and as further evidence was not available, Domigan was released at 1.45 p.m. Some time previously Domigan was charged with cattle stealing in County Dublin. He was returned for trial to the Circuit Court on that charge but was acquitted by the jury.
Will the Minister state whether it is usual to arrest a man first and then try to find out whether the stolen property is in his house or not? Furthermore, will the Minister state why it is that if anything happens in that district evidently the authorities pounce on this particular man? The last time he was arrested for cattle stealing the charge fell through, there being no evidence whatsoever forthcoming, and in this case they arrest him, search his employer's place and search his mother's place, but find no trace of the money.
Of course, I have no information from what is before me here to show that it is the custom, as the Deputy said, always to pounce on this man if anything happens in the neighbourhood. As to the other portion of his question, if they had a reasonable suspicion they naturally would arrest him.
The Minister has not dealt with Deputy Brady's question as to whether it is the custom to arrest a man first and then to seek grounds to justify his arrest. Will the Minister tell me if that is the method adopted by the Department with its own officers in cases where it has to proceed to bring them to justice?
The Deputy had better address that question to the Minister in charge of the Department concerned, but I should say that if there is a reasonable suspicion that a person is guilty of a crime it is quite fair to arrest him.
Is the Minister not well aware that in a number of cases which have been brought to the notice of the Public Accounts Committee the Departments concerned made such inquiries before they proceeded to arrest men that the criminals in many cases got away?
What I would like to find out is why this man has been victimised in this particular way. The local people——
The Deputy is making a speech on the subject. He had better put down another question to the Minister for Justice.
What I want to point out——
The Deputy cannot point it out now.
Then have I permission to raise this question on the Adjournment?
Yes.