Deputy Fahy gave notice that he would raise on the motion for the adjournment the matter dealt with in question No. 8 on to-day's Order Paper.
Question on the Adjournment. - Alleged Assault by Gárdaí.
The question I put to the Minister for Justice was:
"If he will state what disciplinary action, if any, has been taken against two Guards stationed at Ardrahan Gárda Síochána Station and another Guard stationed for having, as is Síochána Station for having, as is alleged, assaulted on July 9th, 1929, Michael Sylver, of Rathbane, Ardrahan."
The Minister in reply said: "On the 11th July last it was reported to the local Inspector of the Gárda Síochána that Michael Sylver, of Rathbane, Ardrahan, had been medically treated for injuries which Sylver alleged were the result of an assault committed on him by certain Guards from Ardrahan and Kinvara Stations. Disciplinary charges were in due course preferred against the Guards in question, but as Sylver refused to sign a statement embodying his allegations the charges of assault, which were denied by the Guards, were not substantiated."
That answer might appear satisfactory if all the circumstances were not known. I might at the outset state, so as, perhaps, to deprive the Minister of one of his usual answers, that I am not asserting that all the Guards are thugs, ruffians, or political partisans. The bulk of them are not, but I do state that it would be better to give the public confidence in the manner in which the Guards enforce the law. If when culprits are discovered they were punished it would be in the interests of the public and of the Guards. There are reasons why this man Sylver was unwilling to sign a statement as required, and I shall deal with these reasons now. I have here the affidavit sworn by Sylver which I shall read, and I have a letter from him which I shall also read, as well as a letter from the doctor who examined and treated him subsequent to the assault. The affidavit is:—
"I, Michael Sylver, of Rathbane, Ardrahan, in the County of Galway, farmer, aged 21 years and upwards, make oath and say: On the night of the 9th day of July, 1929, when returning from a circus at Ardrahan, about 12 o'clock, right at the end of the village I saw three men approach whom I recognised as Guard R.1 from Kinvara station and Guards R.2 and C. from Ardrahan station. When they were about three yards from me I said `Good-night, men.' They did not reply, but Guard R.1 stepped out in front of me and demanded my name, catching hold of my bicycle at the same time. I replied `Sylver,' whereupon Guard R.1 commenced to use very dirty language and called me filthy names. He was apparently very much under the influence of drink. He struck me on the left side of the head with his fist. Then Guards R.2 and C. also struck me on the side and back of the head, and knocked me on the road. Guard R.1 then lay on top of me and punched me on the head and face for at least five minutes. He then went back to the others, who were standing about three or four yards away. After talking to Guard R.2 and Guard C. for a minute or so, Guard R.1 came back to me and ordered me home. I was in the act of getting up off the road when Guard R.1 again struck me with his fist between the shoulders when stooping for the bicycle. Guard R. 1 made an attempt to kick me but the bicycle saved me. I had to leave my cap on the road. I suffered great pain in the head and shoulders that night, and for days after. My left eye was completely closed next morning and I had to get Dr. Gerard Coyne, of Ardrahan, to attend me.
"Sworn at Gort, within the County of Galway, this 29th day of July, 1929, before me, a Commissioner for Oaths in and for said County, and I know the defendant.
"Edward M. Kennedy, Comm.
"Michael Sylver."
In reading this affidavit I have omitted the names of the Guards and substituted initials. Now why did not Sylver sign the statement that the Minister refers to? Light might be thrown on that by this letter which Sylver is also prepared to swear to on oath:—
"I am sending you on my affidavit and doctor's certificate in connection with the beating I got from the Guards on July 9th. This Guard, R.2, was one of the two that beat Silk, of Ballindreene, on Easter Sunday evening at Labane. R.2 admits that he beat Silk and is proud of it. He held me up and searched me on the night of the 9th April last while coming from Ardrahan. On that occasion he threatened me several times that he would knock me down on the road and kick me to make me obey the law. About a week after the beating on July 9th I was arrested in connection with the Castle Taylor shooting. While being detained in the Civic Guard barracks a Chief Superintendent and a Sergeant of the C.I.D. told me the beating I received on July 9th was good enough for me and that they were a long time waiting for me. Both Guards have since been changed. The beating was reported by Dr. Coyne to the Minister for Justice, and he cannot deny it. The outrage was condemned by the parish priest at both Masses on the following Sunday, 14th July."
The doctor's certificate is:—
"I certify that I dressed and treated Mr. Michael Sylver for bruises and injuries to his body and eye. The left eye was severely bruised. He was also in great pain.
"(Signed) G.M. COYNE,
Physician and M.O. to the Post Office, Gort, and to the Guards Gort, Ardrahan, etc."
Doctor Coyne was in the medical service of the Free State Army, so he will not be accused of political prejudice. I do not suppose if a cow kicked Sylver that the parish priest, who is not accused of Republicanism, would have denounced the outrage the following Sunday at both Masses. It is a nice thing if the Guards are to kick a man to make him obey the law. It is well if they are zealous in enforcing the law, but it is important to respect the rights of citizens, and respect of the rights of citizens is not inconsistent with the proper carrying out of their duties by the Guards in enforcing the law. It might be significant also that on this particular night there was a friend of Sylver's at the circus. Two Guards went to him and asked him if he had a light on his bicycle, and advised him to be sure to have it lighted up, and to be very careful when going home. I wonder why the Guards were changed immediately after the occurrence?
I believe that two or three days after the occurrence the local Inspector and some Guards and two members of the C.I.D. from Ballinasloe went to Sylver's house. They searched the house, and were very impudent. They did not use very nice language when speaking to Sylver's sister, and generally they behaved objectionably. They asked impertinent questions, and behaved in a manner not befitting the force. They asked Sylver to attend an inquiry, and his reply was: "My experience of your actions elsewhere, and your actions here to-night, lead me to believe that I would get very little justice at that inquiry, and I will not attend it. I will raise the matter elsewhere." He has sent me the affidavit, a doctor's certificate, and a letter regarding the occurrence, and I have raised the question here. I know that subsequently a C.I.D. man from Ballinasloe interfered with Sylver in a manner likely to prevent him from earning his living as an insurance agent, a business which he carries on part-time. I ask the Minister to see that in such cases proper inquiry is made so that those few of the Guards, and they are a small minority, who have no respect for the law, will be taught to respect the law, that it will be impressed them that it is much more important to respect the liberty of the people than to enforce the law, and that the two are by no means incompatible.
Regarding Deputy Fahy's references, and to show that the Guards were not "stravaging." I would like to cite an instance in proof of it. This young man some time ago got an appointment as an insurance agent for the Munster and Leinster Insurance Society. He was appointed by the Chief Agency Inspector when he was down in Galway. I have reason to know that he got the appointment because I myself hold a position in the society. I was in the area with this man. Some time afterwards in the discharge of his duty he accompanied me on a tour of the county, and we went to Ballinasloe in the course of our duty. After leaving Ballinasloe we came home towards his place through Loughrea. Some three or four hundred yards outside Loughrea the car was held up. We were questioned by a member of the C.I.D. and a Civic Guard who was with him. The car was searched, and we were asked if we had any guns. We proceeded to Loughrea after the search, and two C.I.D. men arrived in the main street in a car from Ballinasloe immediately afterwards. In the course of conversation with the Superintendent, who was down from Athlone, my name was drawn into question as the owner of the car. I went to the C.I.D. man and asked him if he was discussing me. In answer to my query he said that for some time past I was driving a man around who was a danger to the public in the county. I will not quote here the answer I gave him. It seems to me extraordinary that a man was driving around another who was a danger to the county, and that he was not under lock and key if he was a danger. I asked him who was the man in question, but he refused to tell me.
After some time, however, he told me that the man was Mick Sylver, of Ardrahan. He said that I was also driving another big fellow from Dublin. That happened to be the inspector of the society, and, I suppose, because he kept company with such a notorious man as Sylver, he was tarred with the same brush. I would like to know from the Minister whether it is the policy of the C.I.D. to hound a man in such a way that he cannot honestly earn his living. It appeared to me, from the way in which the C.I.D. acted in connection with this young man, that they wanted to get him thrown out of his position and to deny him an opportunity of earning his living. If those are the tactics to be adopted by the C.I.D., the public should know it so that it would clear the air, and if the C.I.D. have got these instructions, we would like to know if that is the Minister's policy.
We have wandered very far from the question put to me to-day by Deputy Fahy. We have heard a long statement by Deputy Jordan about which I received no notice, and I do not know how he expects me to know what occurred in Ballinasloe on such-and-such a date when the matter was not previously brought to my attention.
Does the Minister accept Deputy Jordan's statement?
Let us keep to Deputy Fahy's question. He asked me why proceedings were not taken against the Guards for having assaulted Sylver. What does Deputy Fahy want? Let us consider what his request is. It is not that there is to be an inquiry. Seemingly, he does not want an inquiry. An inquiry. I take it, is an inquiry in which a man will give evidence upon oath, and at which he will be subject to cross-examination.
Will the Minister give an open inquiry?
That is of the very essence of an inquiry. Charges are formulated and brought against the Guards. The matter is then investigated to see if there is any foundation for the charges. The Guards go to Sylver and request him to make a signed statement upon which they can act, but he refuses to give any evidence.
If I give the Minister an affidavit will he make inquiries?
I wish that the Deputy would allow me to speak. I have already said that an inquiry was to be held. Certain charges, charges of assaulting Sylver, and other charges of being away from barracks during the night, were formulated against these three Guards. Sylver refused to come forward and give evidence. As it would not be just to anybody to condemn a man unless his accuser comes into the open, goes to the inquiry and subjects himself to cross-examination, the charge of assault against the Guards broke down. On the other charge of being away from barracks the Guards were duly dealt with in the ordinary disciplinary manner, and each Guard was fined a sum of £5, and warned for dismissal. So far as the charge of assault is concerned, to say that the Guards are to be condemned on the affidavit of a man who will not come forward to give evidence, is to me ridiculous and absurd.
Does not the Minister think, after the conduct of the Guards who visited his house, that he was right in not coming forward?
I do not.
Would Sylver's safety be guaranteed if he goes to an open inquiry?
That is a ridiculous question.
It is not.
Mr. Jordan
Does the Minister doubt any statement I made?
I am not questioning the accuracy of the statement the Deputy made, but how can I know the reasons that the Guards stopped and searched Sylver?
Mr. Jordan
Sylver was not in the car.
I understood from the Deputy that he was.
Mr. Jordan
I never said such a thing.
Who was in the car?
Mr. Jordan
People just as notorious.
I suppose that that was the reason.
Who formulated the charge against the Guards of assaulting Sylver?
The Superintendent of the Guards.
Where did he get his information?
The doctor informed him and the doctor likewise communicated with my Department, and upon the information received from the doctor the charge was formulated.
The Minister stated that the accused must come into the open. If he does, will the Minister grant an open inquiry and will the judge sit in open court?
There has been an inquiry and the matter is closed. I am not going to put the men on a second trial.
If there was an ordinary charge by one individual against another, would not the procedure be to bring such civilian before the Court and charge him in the presence of the other? Obviously from the Minister's reply it is admitted that the Guards were away from barracks without leave and that disciplinary action was taken.
That is circumstantial evidence that Mr. Sylver's allegations are true. If that occurred in the case of an ordinary civilian the Minister would order him to be proceeded against in an ordinary court. Is the Minister prepared to make the Guards obey the law as in the case of an ordinary civilian, and will he put the same machinery in operation against the Guards as he would in the case of an ordinary civilian?
Of course the Guards have to obey the law.
Will you prosecute them?
No. As I have said, an inquiry was about to be held and I am not going to try men twice for the same offence.
The Minister nicely side-stepped the question which Deputy Jordan put to him, although it is one of the most important questions which the Government have to answer. The Minister may smile. Deputy Jordan asked the Minister whether or not it was the policy of the Government by getting C.I.D. men to hound individual Republicans throughout the country to drive them out of the country. That is the most favourable view that one could take of the Government policy. If it is not their object to drive these men out of the country it must be their object to create trouble in the country.
Which is it?
Neither. The object of the Government is to prevent trouble in the country.
I think that the object is to create trouble for the next general election.
This is all irrelevant to the question on the Order Paper.
Would the Minister state the position of the Guards? As citizens are they to be recognised, as a result of the Minister's answer, as a class privileged from criminal proceedings when they are engaged in criminal activities? We had a recent case——
The Deputy cannot bring in other cases. Let him confine himself to the question on the Order Paper.
Very well. Is the Minister going to take up the attitude of conveying from this House that where Guards commit assaults, and where the authorities know it, they will not bring charges against them? Are the Guards a privileged class? How can the Minister state that such an inquiry is the way to deal with it.
When a charge is made against the Guards, the proper course is to hold a disciplinary inquiry where the charge can be properly and fully dealt with.
But the Guard will not be brought to court.
He can.
In this case the doctor brought the charge. The Minister admitted that.
And no evidence could be produced because Sylver refused to come forward.
Does the Minister wish to convey that where his Department has knowledge of criminal action and where a charge is made, that person is to be privileged and precluded from being charged in court?
There is nothing precluding him from being charged in the ordinary way, but no one is going to be convicted without evidence, and on mere statements, no matter where they come from.
Is the sworn affidavit of the man, taken in conjunction with the testimony of the doctory, not sufficient ground for the authorities to bring the Guards before the court on trial? Is not there a prima facie case against the Guards, and, if there is, surely the authorities are bound to take action and to bring the Guards to trial in open court?
I am afraid that the Deputy has not listened to the discussion. I stated half-a-dozen times that proceedings were taken against the Guards, but as no evidence was given by Sylver, the charge broke down.
Mr. Jordan
To what court were they to be taken?
The Deputy has not been listening.
Mr. Jordan
I have, very carefully.
What would the procedure be if there is prima facie evidence in the hands of the Minister that a civilian was guilty of murder or other criminal offence? Would such civilian be only brought before a court held by some District Inspector or Superintendent? Would he not be brought before a court and charged there with the offence? If the same thing does not happen in the case of Guards, are we to take it that they are above the law?
They are not.
Why is the law not put in operation against them, as it is in the case of ordinary civilians?
I suppose I will have to state it all over again, so that it may be finally grasped by the Deputy. When a charge is brought against the Guards the proper thing is to hold an inquiry. They held this court of inquiry, and, owing to the refusal of Sylver to come forward, the charge against the Guards had to be dismissed.
I would like to be clear on that. Perhaps I am unusually dense, as I do not grasp it yet. If a Guard hit me in the street and was observed to do so, would he be prosecuted? Would the Minister say where this particular court of inquiry was held? Was it in the barracks? What action was to be taken finally if evidence was given?
It was an ordinary disciplinary court which was to be held for inquiry into charges of misconduct against the Guards.
It was not a criminal court.
You could call it a criminal court. It was a disciplinary court.
You know it was not a criminal court.
Under the Army Acts if a soldier commits an offence he is dealt with in two ways, or he is supposed to be dealt with in two ways. In the first instance, the ordinary disciplinary measures are taken against him as a soldier, but that does not absolve him from his liability to be charged with the criminal offence in the ordinary civilian courts. We believe, of course, that these Guards are being dealt with in the proper way, from a Cumann na nGaedheal point of view—cover up everything the Guards do. We would like the Minister to quote the law showing that this is proper from the legal point of view. We would like him to quote the Act and the section of the Act that absolves the Guards from obedience to the ordinary criminal law.
I have told the Deputy a hundred times over that they are subject to the ordinary criminal law.
Was it the Superintendent who interviewed Sylver who presided over the court of inquiry?
I do not know anything about this alleged statement. It is not even in Sylver's affidavit or in his letter. It was stated by Deputy Fahy without having any authority, as far as I know, for it. Deputy Fahy is very careful to quote his authority when he has one. Deputy Fahy, where he had an affidavit, was careful to say that he had an affidavit. He was careful to state that he had a letter where he had a letter, and to state what were the contents of the letter, but then he proceeds to make statements seemingly entirely off his own bat.
The Dáil adjourned at 11 p.m. until Thursday, 7th November, at 3 p.m.