asked the Minister for Justice whether he is aware that Edmund O'Reilly, Goold's Cross, County Tipperary, was returned for trial in custody by the District Court on the 29th of January, 1927, to the Central Criminal Court in connection with the murder of Guard Hugh Ward, at Hollyford, on the 14th of November, 1926, and, if so, whether he will state why this man has not been brought to trial or released.
CEISTEANNA—QUESTIONS. ORAL ANSWERS. - DELAYED MURDER TRIAL.
I am aware that Edmund O'Reilly was returned for trial in custody by the District Court on the 29th day of January, 1927, to the Central Criminal Court in connection with the murder of the Guard Hugh Ward at Hollyford, on the 14th day of March, 1926. The case is one of very considerable importance and one in which a considerable number of witnesses will have to be produced both for the prosecution and the accused. Owing to the large number of cases which came before recent sittings of the Central Criminal Court it was not found possible for the trial of Edmund O'Reilly to be proceeded with. The case was adjourned by the Judge to the next sittings of the Central Criminal Court which are to be held on the 22nd day of this month and the trial of the accused will be proceeded with at that sessions.
Is the Minister aware that the late Minister for Justice, in, I think, May last, in reply to a question which I put to him, gave an undertaking that this man would be tried at the Central Criminal Court in June last? Does the Minister consider that it is fair or just to keep a man in prison for twelve months without bringing him to trial?
I have already told Deputy Morrissey that I have undertaken that the trial will be proceeded with at the next sitting of the Central Criminal Court. I am strongly of the opinion that every case should be tried as quickly as possible— not only this case, but that every person who is charged should be brought to trial as quickly as possible.
Could the Minister give the House any good reason why this man should be kept in prison twelve months without trial, or could he give the House any explanation as to why the promise that was given by his predecessor that this man would be tried in June last was not carried out? I think it is a monstrous thing that a man should be kept in prison for twelve months without trial.
Is the Minister aware that this man is in very bad health since 1921 as a result of his fight against the British? I know he is suffering from neuritis, and I would like to inform the Minister, if he does not know, that is a fact. I think this treatment is intended to break this young man, who is one of the best men who ever stood in this country. The Minister might not think so, but perhaps some of his colleagues might know something about that.
The prisoner, as I think I mentioned before, in answer to a question, has actually increased in weight in prison, and the reports on his health are good.
Through want of exercise, of course.
Would the Minister answer my question? A definite promise was given in this House that this man would be brought to trial last June. I have asked the Minister if he can give any explanation to the House as to why this was not done, why it should be necessary to keep this man in prison for a further six months, and I have not got any reply to it.
The reply I make to that is that it has been owing to the congestion of business in the Central Criminal Court.
Is it a fact that men arrested and charged subsequent to the arrest of O'Reilly have been brought to trial in the Central Criminal Court?
Very probably that is so.
Then congestion is not the proper explanation.
All those cases have not been brought to trial.
They want to finish O'Reilly.