I move the adjournment of the Dáil until 3 o'clock to-morrow.
THE ADJOURNMENT—SHOOTING AT KILLENAULE.
I want to raise the case of the shooting of John J. Murphy of Killenaule, by Free State troops on the 9th August, 1924. The facts in connection with the case are as follows: A crowd of young men were collected in a playing field in the village of Killenaule, in the County of Tipperary, on 9th August, 1924. These young men had been practising for a hurling match, that was to take place the following day at Cashel, for the Junior Championship of the County. Having finished their practice, they collected together for the purpose of discussing the formation of the team. It was getting towards dusk at the time. Suddenly they found themselves fired upon, and this young man, John Joseph Murphy, fell dangerously wounded. Apparently, two shots were fired. Murphy was hit and his thigh-bone broken. I believe the same bullet that hit Murphy hit also a young man named Keane.
As soon as the shot was fired the Free State troops rushed to the field shouting "Hands up." These troops were divided into two bodies. One the main body, was on the road, which adjoins the field, and the other body apparently, was on the other side concealed behind a hillock. The body behind the hillock consisted of an officer and two men, and all indications went to show that the bullets were fired from behind the hillock. Murphy was taken to the Cashel Infirmary and remained there for three months. Keane was sent to Steevens' Hospital. Murphy at first was unfit to be removed for treatment to Dublin, but, after three months in the Cashel Infirmary, he was sent to Dublin and had to be operated upon there again. His leg had to be rebroken and reset and he suffered considerable pain and was in hospital for a long time. Eventually, he was sent home to Killenaule. I have seen him myself and I would say he is almost permanently disabled One of his legs is shorter by several inches than the other. The boy is in delicate health and I think the bones of his leg have not yet become strong enough to let him walk about with case. He is walking about now with the aid of two sticks. I took the question of compensation up with the Department of Defence, and, after a great many questions and letters dating from August, 1924, to about a month ago, the Minister wrote stating that an ex gratia grant of £150 had been made to him.
I may mention that a Court of Inquiry was held in Thurles shortly after this event happened and witnesses from Killenaule were called there, it is believed, but the result of the Court of Inquiry was never published. No information was given to me with regard to the Court of Inquiry and later on, in December of the same year, a Courtmartial was held upon the officer, Lieutenant Poole. Apparently, the Lieutenant was not found guilty of negligence, and was not punished in any way. At least, we have had no intimation that he was found guilty by the Courtmartial and, so far as I know, the findings of the Courtmartial were never published.
All the evidence tends to show that this was simply a wanton action. There was not the smallest possible occasion or justification whatever for it. I call attention to the fact that this occurred in August, 1924; it did not happen in 1922 or even in 1923; it happened in 1924, when the condition of the country was perfectly peaceful and when there was no indication that there was any kind of irregular action on the part of these men or that these men were connected with the Irregular movement. These young men were steadily practising the game of hurley: the Gárda Síochána knew of the position, and had seen them at play. It was well known that the gathering was for the purpose of playing hurling.
There were stories in connection with the action of the military, at that time, to the effect that they were not sober, and that they were not in a fit condition to understand what they were doing. I assume that evidence was given at the Court of Inquiry and the Courtmartial. I have only got the story from the point of view of the people of Killenaule. But the actual shooting indicates that the men were not in full possession of their faculties at the time. Personally, I can see no justification for the shooting. I made inquiries from prominent people, and all the stories confirmed the accuracy of the statement made to me by Murphy.
In view of the fact that Murphy is completely disabled and likely to be invalided for life, and that he was a smart, capable young man with good prospects, I think he deserves greater consideration. At the time he was shot, his passage had been paid to America by an uncle, and he was waiting only to get his place on a ship to take him there. He had got his passport, and all the formalities were completed. So far as going to America is concerned, his whole future is spoiled owing to this shooting. I consider there was no justification whatever for this act, and I think that the Ministry ought to have dealt more generously with this young man than it has done. I think it should deal as generously with him as with any young man in the Army who suffered permanent disablement, because of accident or disability occurring during service in the Army.
I believe Murphy has ground for taking a legal action against the Minister for Defence just as any citizen would have grounds for taking an action against another citizen who inflicted injury upon him, but this is a poor boy with no money to expend on fees to solicitors and counsel. He has been put to expense in connection with the injury he suffered to a greater extent than the whole of the ex gratia grant. I appeal to the Minister to reconsider this case, and to make a much more generous grant of compensation to this young man. I believe, if it is to be at all adequate, it must be greatly in excess of the amount already granted. I believe Murphy has refused to accept this money, and I believe he was advised by prominent people in Killenaule not to accept it. I hope the Minister will give this matter his most careful and sympathetic consideration, with a view to a very considerable increase in the amount of the ex gratia grant.
I would also appeal to the Minister to reconsider this case, as I know something about it. No later than a week ago I was speaking to this man Murphy, and in my opinion he will be a cripple for the remainder of his life. At the time that this outrage occurred I understand he was a fine young man and, as Deputy Heffernan has said, he had good prospects. Now his whole life has been ruined by this outrage, because it was no less than an outrage and a blot upon the name of the National Army, that any officer with any sense of responsibility should order his men to fire upon a crowd who were hurling in a field without any warning, particularly, as Deputy Heffernan points out, as this occurred in 1924. There might be some excuse for it if it had occurred in 1922 or early in 1923, but in August, 1924, there could be no excuse for it. It was a very serious matter, because the second man who was wounded is still in hospital. The two men are poor and have been put to considerable expense. As a matter of fact, Murphy has spent a good deal more than he has been offered on medical and legal expenses. His whole life is ruined and he cannot take up any employment. Up to the present he has been maintained by his people but unfortunately his father died within the last month or so, so that he really has no prospect before him. I think there is an obligation on the Department of Defence to do all in their power to repair the injury that has been done. There is no question that this man, or any of those who were in the field at the time, had any connection with the Irregular movement, or were in any way hostile to the State. On the contrary, I am informed that they were supporters of the present Government. I appeal strongly to the Minister and the Government to treat this man not generously, but fairly and justly, because he certainly has suffered a great deal and will suffer for the remainder of his life.
I admit at once that this man Murphy was wounded on this occasion. I do not admit, however, that there were two shots fired. I admit that there was one shot fired and that that one shot wounded both of these men—Murphy and Keane. Deputy Heffernan did not under-state the case; he over-stated it.
Might I explain as to the two shots? I understand that the Lieutenant and a private soldier who was with him were arrested immediately after the occurrence by the Gárda Síochána and on the rifle being examined it was found that there were two empty cartridge cases in it. That is the statement made to me.
That does not bring us very far.
The cartridge case would, naturally, be thrown out by the bullet. Probably one of the cartridge cases was found in his possession. It is not claimed that these two men were shot by separate bullets. I believe it is the fact that they were shot by the one bullet.
They were shot, anyhow.
I am admitting all that. As to the question of the injury to this man's leg, unfortunately it is short. Deputy Heffernan says it is several inches short. As a matter of fact, the report of the doctor states that his leg is one inch short. I do not want to make much or little out of this case. From the information in my Department, and from information supplied to us from other sources, the reason for this shooting was that information was conveyed that drilling was going on in this area almost every night within that period. Representations were made to the military that they should proceed to the area and find out if that was the case. They were accompanied on the occasion by members of the Gárda Síochána. When they arrived at this field they found these men there—innocently or otherwise, probably innocently. Their actions, however, did not tend to show that they were there with an innocent intent. When called upon to halt, instead of standing their ground as innocent men should, they proceeded to run away. They were called upon to halt; they did not halt, and one shot was fired, with the unfortunate result that these two men were wounded. As a matter of fact, there were two courts of inquiry held into this affair. One was the ordinary local court of inquiry, and a month or two afterwards a second court of inquiry was held by headquarters officers who had no interest in the matter at all. The officer in charge was tried by court-martial and found not guilty of the charges made against him.
I have taken the precaution to look into this case personally, and, taking into account the manner in which similar cases have been treated and what this man would get, for instance under the Workmen's Compensation Act, or any of the other Acts passed for awarding compensation in case of injury by accident or otherwise, I came to the conclusion, after due deliberation, that £150 was reasonable compensation. I do not say that the man was over-compensated. What I had to consider was what was reasonable compensation, and that is as far as I can go. The recommendation was sent to the Department of Finance, and after some little hesitation it was sanctioned, the result being that a cheque was sent about a month ago for the £150. Deputy Heffernan says that that sum will not be accepted. It is an ex-gratia grant. We do not admit that any action lies against the military in this matter. The case was submitted to the Attorney-General and his opinion was that an ex-gratia grant should be made. That ex-gratia grant was made on the terms which I have set forth. I deplore this accident, but I think that reasonable compensation has been given, and I do not think that any useful purpose would be served by re-opening the case. There are other aspects of it which I do not want to enter into, as regards the state of his health and his family history, and all that. I believe that, taking everything into account, he was reasonably dealt with. I do not say that he was lavishly dealt with, but reasonably dealt with, and I cannot see my way to re-open the case.
Deputy Morrissey has stated that the other man, Keane, is in hospital at present. That case is not before me. Certain payments were made in his case and we have not heard any more about it. He was out of hospital at that time, and I am not in a position to say whether he is now back in hospital. If Deputy Morrissey says he is I accept his word. He was out of hospital when certain payments were made to him and we have not heard anything from him since.
I have been informed that he is in hospital. The Minister said that the military were accompanied on the occasion by a number of the Gárda Síochána. Could the Minister say if the members of the Gárda Síochána who were present agreed that these men were called upon to halt? My information is that the first intimation which the men, who were in the field engaged in selecting a team for a hurling match on the following day, got was when the shot was fired; that they were never called upon to halt and that they did not know that the military were within a hundred miles of them until the shot was fired.
I have the evidence that was given at the courts of inquiry and all the information we can get points to the fact that it was alleged that drilling was going on in the neighbourhood and the military were requisitioned to go there. They found a party of men in a field. They proceeded to surround them, I suppose, and the men proceeded to run away. As I have said before, they were called upon to halt and did not, and one shot was fired. It is a most unfortunate thing; it is one of those things we cannot help in the circumstances.
Can the Minister say if members of the Gárda Síochána were examined at the court of inquiry?
I could not say at the moment.
Is the Minister aware that the local Gárdaí were aware that these men were hurling in the field and that some of the local Gárdaí were actually hurling with them? That can be proved beyond doubt.
I cannot say if that is so, or if members of the Gárdaí went there for hurling or not. I know that the military were requisitioned to put down drilling in that area.
And they put down hurling instead.
Is it the case that at a military inquiry only military evidence is taken? Can the Minister say if the Gárdaí were called at the military inquiry?
I do not know if the Gárdaí were called. The practice is that every available witness is called at a courtmartial.
It is alleged that after the occurrence the officer in charge and one private were arrested by the Gárdaí. If that is so, it would go to prove that the men were not called on to halt, and did not run away. If they were called upon to halt in the ordinary way, and if the officer was carrying out his duty, I do not think the Gárdaí would go about arresting him, and also a private soldier.
From all the information at my disposal neither the officer nor the private were arrested on that occasion. There may be allegations to the contrary, but I believe they are not well-founded.
It is well known by the local people.
Was this courtmartial open to the public, or had the public any access to the sitting of the court?
Certainly, any person who was there at the time of the shooting could give evidence.
I am not talking about that. Was the courtmartial public?
Certainly not.
The evidence was not taken in public, and no one knows anything about what happened in August, 1924?
Except the Army.
That conveys one thing—that there was something to hide.
To my mind it conveys no such thing. There was nothing to hide. Courts of inquiry held by the military are not usually open to the public. Sometimes, when there is something of public interest going on, if the Press representatives request admission to a courtmartial, they are admitted. In the ordinary way the Press representatives are not invited.
They know nothing about it.
It is their duty to know it.
I could understand this thing happening in 1922 or 1923, and I would not grumble, but, when it comes to August, 1924 I think the time is ripe for a public inquiry, so that the public can judge for themselves. I cannot understand how this could occur, except it was due to the allegations Deputy Heffernan made, that these people were drunk. I have no doubt in my own mind as to the condition they were in.
Of course, anyone could say a thing like that.
I would like to know how long they were there. Nobody knows that, as the files are held back. I wonder what expense this man was put to, and how far £150, which was offered, will go to recoup him for the expenditure? I heard about this matter when it occurred. I do not know what expense the family of this man was put to. One thing is certain, and that is that a bullet wound passing through the body is different to any other wound. Nervous and other complications will arise from a bullet wound that would not arise as the result of an ordinary accident. The after-effects of a bullet wound are different to the effects of another accident, Limbs after other accidents can be reset and nervous trouble is never heard of. After a bullet wound it is usual to have muscle or nervous complications.
Is the Minister aware if any of the men who were eye-witnesses on the occasion were called to give evidence at the courtmartial?
There is no allegation of nerve trouble in this case. The only allegation is that of tubercular trouble. I did not want to say that in public, but the allegation is that it is a family disease. It is a thing I do not want to talk about.
I would like to ask the Minister about the position of the Army authorities on this courtmartial: is it the case, following shooting on a crowd by a group of soldiers in time of peace, where a man is killed or wounded, that the only operation to take in regard to the legitimacy of the act is to have a courtmartial? If that is all, is that courtmartial open to the public, and are all the witnesses and interested persons notified of the fact that there is to be a courtmartial? To me it seems curious that there was not a civil charge preferred and a public trial. The question of representation of the injured man by counsel in this case, or of his friends, or others, seems to arise at once and I think a good deal more consideration ought to be given to a case of this kind.
I want to ask the Minister whether a man named Thomas Nolan, who appeared at the first inquiry, or at least offered evidence, was asked to give evidence? He maintains that he saw the soldiers before the firing, but he was not called to give evidence at the courtmartial. I also want to know if a publican's wife who was able to give valuable evidence, but who was unable to do so owing to the condition of her health at the time, was called? I also want to ask the Minister if he can give any information as to what medical evidence he has with regard to the physical condition of Murphy? From my own knowledge of the man, I should say that he is in a very poor physical condition. As the Minister has mentioned family disease, is it not possible that a disease of this kind would be aggravated by the wound?
I agree.
And by the suffering and the consequent state of health of this man? I also say attention ought to be called to the point regarding the legal aspect of the case raised by Deputy Johnson. I think that is important. There is no justification for military in time of peace firing on citizens, even though they were suspected of being an illegal organisation. In this case it is acknowledged they were not engaged in illegal movements at the time of the occurrence. I think the manner in which the case has been dealt with is unsatisfactory.
In view of the discrepancies between the statements by Deputy Heffernan and Deputy Morrissey and the Minister's information I suggest that a further inquiry should be held so as to ascertain from the Gárdaí and eye-witnesses of the outrage what did happen.
It was the Gárdaí who brought the military there in the first instance, and before they went to the field the military went to the barracks for the purpose of verifying reports that were made to them about drilling going on in the district. If it were not for the information they got from the Gárdaí they would not be there at all. I am not disposed to hold a further inquiry. Two inquiries and a courtmartial have been held. As I said, the Department tried to make amends for the incident. I have looked carefully into all the evidence, and taking into account the compensation that has been given in similar cases during the past three or four years I came to the conclusion that the compensation in this case was reasonable. I admit it was nothing extraordinary, but it was reasonable, and I do not think the Department should be asked to give anything more than reasonable compensation, or such as might be given under the Workmen's Compensation Act. This man was partially dependent on his father at the time. He was an ex-R.I.C. man and, I think, a school attendance officer, and his income was about £100 a year. It was stated this man was a grocer's assistant. I have not seen him, and I do not know whether he is able to follow his previous occupation or not. My information is that the injured leg is an inch shorter than the other. I admit he is not in good health.
Does the Minister consider that the Workmen's Compensation Act would be an equitable basis in awarding compensation for the deliberate act of State forces in firing on a body of men?
I do not agree that it was a deliberate act. If these men had stood their ground as innocent citizens no accident would have happened. If they had halted when called upon, no shot would have been fired. If it could be proved that a body of innocent men were there, and that the military just went into the field and opened fire on them, then I say they should be dealt with severely, but here is a case where drilling was going on in the area. The military were requisitioned to go and they went there. They found a number of men in the field, and they called on them to halt, and these men, when called upon, ran away. One shot was fired, and that shot, unfortunately, struck two people.
Will the Minister recognise that these are the facts, that the public has a right to a chance of judging upon the evidence, and that the inquiry should be open to everybody? Will he recognise that in the absence of such an inquiry, a doubt exists in the mind of everybody that the details as given by the military are not the facts? It would be a good thing for the Department and the Army if the facts were made public. I am sure the Minister, as a sensible man, will recognise that a cloud of suspicion envelops the matter inasmuch as the public has not had an opportunity of seeing the evidence on both sides.
I would like to have the Minister's view of the position of the military in such a case. It seems from the facts, and from statements made here, that a soldier may shoot and wound, or kill a man, and the only protection the public will have is a military inquiry or a courtmartial.
Behind closed doors.
Closed or not I do not mind. I thought that in time of peace the public court was a right of the citizen. I suppose it is not the responsibility of the Minister for Defence to initiate a trial of his own servants but it is the responsibility of some authority which is represented on the front Bench opposite. I cannot quite understand how it comes that an inquiry of this kind should be merely a courtmartial, and, as has been pointed out, which was not public and with very little knowledge of who were to be called as witnesses. The public will require some protection in such a matter.
I might say that if the allegations made here are true and that the Gárda Síochána did arrest these people, they could have brought them to justice in a public court but the military held their own inquiry under their own law. If the Gárdaí found that these men were engaged in an illegal act and that they acted in the manner which has been described here, it was their duty to bring them before the civil court. Admittedly they had no case to bring and there was no prosecution brought. The result was that the military dealt with their own people as they always do. If the civil authority stepped in, they have just the same right to prosecute a soldier publicly as any other member of the community.
Will the Minister say who convened the first inquiry and by whom it was held? He referred to three inquiries one of which was a courtmartial. What sort were the other two?
The other two were inquiries convened by the Adjutant-General who inquired into the circumstances. One was held by the officers of the local area. The second was held six weeks or two months afterwards by officers from headquarters.
The Dáil adjourned at 10.30 p.m.