asked the Minister for Justice if he is aware that two members of the Criminal Investigation Department called at the place of employment of Michael James Rafferty, who resides at 48 Larkfield Avenue Road, Kimmage, and demanded that he should accompany them to their Headquarters for interrogation in connection with an attack which took place some time ago on John Murphy, of Delaford. Templeogue, notwithstanding that the said Michael James Rafferty had already been twice arrested, interrogated, held for identification, and released after the principal witnesses had failed to identify him; will the Minister have an inquiry held into the foregoing.
ORAL ANSWERS. - INTERROGATION OF KIMMAGE RESIDENT.
Mrs. Murphy, of Delaford House, Templeogue, Co. Dublin. made a complaint to the police on the night of the 7th March last that three armed and masked men had entered her house and beaten her husband and her husband's brother, Rev. Cyril Murphy, who was home on a holiday from America. In the course of the police investigation into the occurrence suspicion fell on Michael Rafferty, whose father occupied a yard lodge at Delaford House and was under notice to quit from Mr. Murphy. On the 9th March Michael Rafferty was paraded with other people before Mrs. Murphy, but she merely said that Rafferty was very like one of the assailants, and he was accordingly released. On the 12th March Father Murphy, at his own request, was given an opportunity at an identification parade, in which Rafferty was included, of seeing whether he could identify any of the assailants, but he failed to do so.
As a result of information which came recently to the police it was decided that further inquiries should be made into the movements of Rafferty on the occasion of the crime. A detective officer accordingly called at Rafferty's place of employment on the 24th ultimo and had a message conveyed to him requesting him to call at the Detective Office that evening. Rafferty duly called between 7 and 8 p.m. and was interviewed. He told the police all about his movements on the 7th March. He made no complaints of any kind to the police, and the matter ended there. I do not see that any inquiry into this whole matter could be of any avail.
Had the Gárda strong reason to suspect that this man was concerned in the attack referred to?
Of course the Gárda had reason or they would not have made those inquiries.
If so, will the Minister explain why it was that in the course of his interrogation it was suggested to this man, suspected of a criminal offence, that he should become a member of the Criminal Investigation of the Gárda?
I should be rather surprised to hear that anything of the kind happened, but surely that does not arise out of this question. I should be very much surprised to hear it was a fact.