asked the Minister for Justice if he will state, with regard to J. Fitzgerald, Clonmel, brought before the Military Tribunal about the 20th December last (a) what charge was preferred against him; (b) under which paragraph of the Appendix to the Constitution (Amendment No. 17) Act, 1931, was the charge taken; (c) what special circumstances operated to have him brought on such a charge before the Military Tribunal rather than before the ordinary courts; (d) if he was found guilty, and, if so, on what ground; and (e) if the weapon featured in the case was a "firearm", as defined in the Firearms Act, 1925.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - The Military Tribunal.
I have no information to give in this case beyond what has already appeared in the public Press.
The information which appeared in the public Press, of course, does not refer to the special circumstances operating to have J. Fitzgerald brought before the Military Tribunal rather than the ordinary courts. Has the Minister no information to give on that? The Minister has not answered, because the public Press does not contain the information as to whether the weapon in question was a "firearm" as defined in the Firearms Act. I draw the Minister's attention to his definition of a lethal weapon, as given last week, and ask if he thinks this weapon comes within that.
I cannot discuss the decision of the Military Tribunal or the grounds on which it arrived at a decision. I would refer the Deputy to Sergeant Kirwan's evidence.
I have read the evidence. Apart from what the Military Tribunal may have found, I am interested to know was the charge continued to be pressed when it was discovered what type of weapon it was. In other words, did the Attorney-General's instructions still run, even when the weapon was declared to be obsolete?
Not declared by the court to be incapable of discharging a shot, or borne out by evidence as being in that way.
The President of the Court said "Certainly it would not kill anyone; it is absolutely harmless." Is that a lethal weapon?