asked the Minister for Justice if he is aware that Mr. Francis Burke, 38 George's Street. Sligo, was arrested by members of the Gárda Síochána on June 8th and taken to Wine Street Police Station, where, it is alleged, he was beaten by Gárdaí and accused of an offence of which he had been previously acquitted by a jury on the direction of the judge; if he will state the nature of the inquiry, if any, held into the conduct of the Gárdaí in the matter, and the disciplinary action taken against the Gárdaí responsible for the occurrence.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Garda Discipline in Sligo.
Francis Burke was arrested by members of the Gárda Síochána at about 12.15 a.m. on the night of the 8th-9th instant, on a charge of being guilty of riotous and disorderly conduct. He resisted arrest. He was brought to the barrack and detained there for about half an hour when he was released on his giving an undertaking to go home quietly. He was not assaulted, and no more force was employed in effecting his arrest than was necessary to overcome his resistance. He was not accused of any offence of which he had previously been acquitted. The charge against him will be dealt with at the Sligo District Court on the 21st instant. No disciplinary enquiry into the conduct of the members of the Gárda concerned is called for.
Of course this is only one of a series of cases mentioned here quite recently, and the Minister has given a typical reply. I wish to ask the Minister would he not be prepared to accept evidence from me? Would my word not be accepted if I am going to take the responsibility of making a statement that this boy was standing outside the Town Hall in Sligo, waiting the result of the election, when he was attacked by the Guards and taken to the barrack, and while in the barrack people in the town, who were standing outside the Town Hall, heard him distinctly roaring as he was being beaten by the Guards.
The Deputy is making a statement and not asking a question.
I wish to give notice that I shall raise this matter on the adjournment.
This case is sub judice, and I think it is highly undesirable that it should be debated on the adjournment. When the Deputy asks that his word should be accepted, I suggest to him that he can go down to Sligo and give evidence in the hearing of the case, where, on the 21st inst., his credibility will be a matter for the District Justice?
At whose expense will he go?
I presume at his own.
The Minister has stated that the case is sub judice. Is the case of the Guards, of whom it is alleged that they acted in a manner prejudicial to good order and peace, sub judice?
There is no charge against the Guards.
I am making a charge against them in the question.
No charge has been made against them in Court.
I give notice that I shall raise this matter on the adjournment.
I should like to know whether it is in order for a Minister to refuse to accept the word of a Deputy when he personally pledges, in this House, his own credit and reputation to the statement he makes as an actual witness of this occurrence?
It would seem to me that the Minister is not obliged to accept the Deputy's word in the circumstances of this case.
The Minister prefers to accept the word of a Civic Guard rather than accept the word of an elected representative of the people. He will not order an inquiry into the conduct of the Guards.