asked the Minister for Justice if he will state if he is aware that Mr. Thomas Hudson of Newmarket, Knocktopher, County Kilkenny, was arrested on the 14th November, and brought to Waterford barracks at 1 a.m. and there interrogated for about an hour; that he was made remove his boots, and at 2 a.m. was removed in his stockinged feet to a cell in which there was no light, in which four or five panes of glass were broken, and the stone floor of which was in a filthy condition; that the only bedclothing provided was an old disused greatcoat belonging to a Gárda; that no notice was taken of Mr. Hudson's complaint regarding the filthy state of the cell, and its general condition, nor of his complaint of the inadequacy of the bedclothing; that he was kept in the cell without any boots until 4 o'clock next day, and if the Minister will state what is the reason for this treatment of Mr. Hudson; whether this treatment is the result of instructions issued by the Minister, or whether it is in accordance with general police regulations, and, if so, if he will state the particular regulation, or regulations.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Treatment of Prisoner.
The person referred to in the question was detained at Waterford Barracks on suspicion of having committed certain offences, including the unlawful possession of ammunition, to which he, in fact, pleaded guilty before the Constitution (Special Powers) Tribunal on the 7th instant. I am satisfied that, while so detained, he was subjected to no ill-treatment whatsoever and that every allegation contained in the question is without foundation. In particular I might mention that the cell in which the prisoner was detained was not in a filthy condition and that he made no complaints whatever either as to the condition of the cell or as to his general treatment.
Does the Minister deny that the prisoner's boots were removed; that he was kept in a cell, for the length of time stated in the question, without any boots; that the windows in the cell were broken, and that the only bed-clothing he was provided with was a Guard's disused overcoat?
What happened was that this man when arrested was suspected of having ammunition. Some ammunition was found on him, and he was wearing a pair of Army boots which were recently issued. He had been discharged from the Army shortly before. Those boots were removed on the grounds that the Guards believed he was not in proper possession of them, but had got them by improper means.
He was given felt house shoes, which the Guards maintain were perfectly comfortable. As regards the broken windows, in 1930 during the Deputy's régime, three panes were removed by order of the Board of Works for the purpose of ventilation. It is assumed that those are the broken windows referred to.
Are we to understand from the Minister that every man who has left the Army or the Army reserve with boots supplied to him while in the Army or the Army reserve, and left with him when leaving, is liable to be arrested by the Guards and have the boots taken off him on the grounds that he is not in lawful possession of them?
If the Guards are satisfied that they got them improperly they are entitled to take them.
Have the boots been returned?
They have not.