Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Thursday, 20 Feb 1930

Vol. 33 No. 5

Private Deputies' Business. - Adjournment Debate—Listowel Arrests.

Mr. J. Crowley

I asked a question of the Minister for Justice to-day. The question was: "Whether the Gárda Síochána authorities received any complaint relative to the arrest and alleged ill-treatment of Martin and Michael Hayes of Mountcoal, Listowel, on 19th December last, and, if so, what action has been, or will be, taken to deal with the person or persons against whom such complaints have been made." The Minister replied as follows: "The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. As regards the second part of the question the solicitors for the complainants who were in communication with the local Gárda Síochána Officer were informed on 20th ultimo that the complaints had been considered and it was not proposed to take any action in the matter." As I considered that answer to be very unsatisfactory, I asked for leave to bring the matter up on the Motion for the Adjournment. As there is not much time in which to do so I would like to relate the facts, but before I do so I want to make it perfectly plain that I yield to nobody in my admiration of that splendid force, the Gárda Síochána. I believe that there is no police force in the world superior to them in zeal, efficiency and courtesy and in perhaps what is more important still, sympathy with the public. The extraordinarily high standard which they have reached within a few years is most amazing and affords the utmost gratification to all of us, as Irishmen. But, of course, in any considerable body of men one is bound to find a few undesirables. Some, clad in a little authority, forget that they are the servants of the public and act as village tyrants; others, who have naturally vicious tendencies, exploit them on persons whom they believe incapable of resistance or of effective retaliation.

It is inevitable that men of such temperament should take as their exemplars that notorious force which they replaced, the "Black and Tans" and that they should faithfully follow their routine of midnight raids, terrorisation and indiscriminate shooting, especially in rural areas. Others, zealous for early promotion, adopt a practice said to be of trans-oceanic origin, the "third degree," in cases wherein evidence of crime is sought. I am sure that everyone here will agree that this splendid force is well rid of such men, and that it is the duty of all good citizens to make public their misconduct, and of the Government rigorously to avoid any semblance of granting to any members of this force, who break the law, protection or treatment preferential to that accorded to the ordinary civilian. I submit that such is not the attitude of the Ministry of Justice, which appears to be more concerned with the reputation of this force than with the elementary rights of the subject. What are the facts as we know them? They are as follows:—Martin Hayes and Michael Hayes live with their father and mother, both of advanced years, with their brother Jeremiah and sister, Kate, in a lonely cottage at Dromclough about five miles from Listowel. All the members of the family are peaceful and hardworking and bear excellent characters. Martin served in the National Army for nearly seven years from April, 1922, with character on discharge "very good." At about 1.30 a.m. on the morning of 19th December last, old Mrs. Hayes was awakened by hearing knocking and kicking at the door. She looked out and saw a motor car pulled up and a number of men at her door. She asked who were there and the reply was given "Open the door." After a short time she opened the door and four men came in. They refused to say who they were or what they wanted. They asked for her sons and told them to dress. They refused to allow a lamp to be lighted but put flash lamps to the faces of the three sons. The daughter lit a candle and identified one of the men, who all appeared to be in plain clothes, as Sergeant H. of Listowel. He was identified also by Michael and Jeremiah. These men ordered the three sons to go outside and to get into the waiting motor car, but first took Michael Hayes away down the road, one walking in front, one on each side, and one, who waved a revolver over Hayes' shoulder, behind. One said: "Do not shoot him here." Michael Hayes looked around and was immediately punched, kicked and knocked into the hedge where he was throttled, interrogated and punched. One of the men put a revolver to his forehead and fired a shot over his head. They used vile language and threatened him with a grave. Michael Hayes addressed the Sergent by name and asked what he was going to do to him. The Sergeant said to the others to leave him alone, that he would tell. On Michael's return to the car Martin was brought about 200 yards down the road and about 100 yards into a field, where he was knocked down, beaten and kicked, and told that a grave was waiting for him, if you please. A shot was fired over his head.

On 20th December last Martin Hayes came to me and complained of the ill-treatment he had received from the Guards. I advised him to see a solicitor. He did so, and the solicitor wrote to the Superintendent of the Guards at Listowel. That was on 21st December. A reply was received from the Superintendent on 28th December. The reply reads:—

Re alleged assault on Jeremiah, Martin and Michael Hayes, Dromclough, Listowel, on 19/12/1929.

Dear Sirs,

I beg to acknowledge receipt of your letter of the 21st instant and having reference to above. I have carefully investigated this complaint regarding the conduct of a member of the Gárda Síochána on date and at hour mentioned and, so far, I have found nothing to justify the statements made to you by the the above-named. I am further inquiring into the allegations made against a member of the Force, and, on completion of my investigation I shall again write to you on the subject.

Yours faithfully,

Jno. Kelly,

Feadhmannach.

Messrs. Moran & Browne,

Solicitors, William Street,

Listowel.

Some time about the middle of January the Chief Superintendent at Tralee called to the home of the Hayes family together with the Superintendent at Listowel, and took statements. He then made an extraordinary remark for an official who is supposed to conduct an impartial inquiry. I will tell you about that later. The solicitor for the Hayes brothers was not warned of this visit nor invited to attend.

On 20th January, the Superintendent, Listowel, wrote as follows to the solicitors:—

Dear Sirs,

Referring to your letter of 21st December, 1929, re above, and my acknowledgement dated 28th December, 1929, I now wish to inform you that I have completed my investigation of this case. During my investigation particular attention was directed to the fact that a member of the Gárda is alleged to have taken part in what has been described to you as an aggravated assault, etc. As a result of my investigations I have ascertained that the party who called at the house of the Hayes family were all members of the Gárda who were then investigating a shooting which took place in the locality at 7 p.m. on the night of the 18th December, 1929. I have taken statements from each member separately and I can find nothing to substantiate the allegations made by you, and in view of this I am not proceeding further in the matter.

Faithfully yours,

Jno. Kelly,

Superintendent.

That was on the 20th January, 1930. On that night two men, Buckley and Fiaherty, were brought into Listowel as prisoners. It was freely rumoured that one of them was badly beaten but that the matter was settled by the intervention of an ex-Justice of the Peace with the assistance of something else.

Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney

I submit, sir, that the Deputy should keep to the matter of his question.

Mr. Crowley

Oh, very well, sir. Now, I think it would be a monstrous thing if, as this sergeant has boasted, he is to be defended by the State in a case of this kind, and, I submit, that to require these young men to undertake a criminal prosecution at their own cost and in face of the opposition of the State, is a denial of justice which, I am sure, this House will not condone.

Now, as regards the letter of 28th December last, you will notice that the Superintendent of the Guards at Listowel wrote to the solicitor acting for the Hayes brothers and made a statement that he investigated the complaint made regarding the conduct of a member of the Gardá Síochána on the date and at the hour mentioned, and he says that, "So far, I have found nothing to justify the statements made to you by the above-named. I am further inquiring into the allegations made against a member of the force, and on completion of my investigation I shall again write to you on the subject." The Minister might not be aware that at the date of that letter, the 28th December, no member of the Hayes family had been asked for, or had given, any statement relative to these complaints. The Superintendent does not say what was the nature and extent of the "careful Investigations," and who are the persons on whose examination or evidence he based this statement that "I have found nothing to justify the statement made to you."

Does the Minister know that a further letter, dated 20th January last, was received by the solicitors from Superintendent Kelly, wherein he stated that "I have completed my investigation of this case," and wherein he admits that the party who called at the house of the Hayes family were all members of the Garda, and that he had taken statements from each member separately, and that he could find nothing to substantiate the allegations made, and that in view of this he was not proceeding further in the matter. Now, that Superintendent was the officer in charge of the parties operating in this district. Here is a case where serious allegations have been made of a raid on a lonely house at about 1.30 in the morning, allegations of threats, intimidation and assault, of dragging two respectable young men down the road and into the fields, of firing shots over their heads. You have here a Superintendent of Guards in charge of and, I presume, responsible for the actions of these parties of Guards, who apparently thinks he has the power to close the matter and to acquit himself and his subordinates by saying: "As a result of my inquiry, and as a result of statements taken from each member of the party, I find no substantiation for these allegations and I am not proceeding further in the matter."

Will the Minister say whether a Chief Superintendent of Guards, accompanied by the Superintendent in question, visited the house of the Hayes family about the middle of January and took statements from the mother, father, three brothers and a sister, and whether the solicitor acting for the complainants who had been in correspondence with the Superintendent since 21st December, was invited to be present? I know he was not invited to be present. Now, I want to refer the Minister to columns 890 and 891 of the Official Debates for 6th November last, wherein the Minister defines an inquiry as "an inquiry in which a man will give evidence upon oath and at which he will be subject to cross-examination," and, further, "an open inquiry is the very essence of an inquiry." Will the Minister indicate any stage of the investigations which have been made so far in this case wherein his definition has been respected by the Civic Guards? Will he say whether the statements taken from the Hayes family do not disclose a prima facia case in support of this allegation? I ask the Minister if he is aware that the members of this family allege that the Chief Superintendent remarked when the mother of the family had stated that she had not heard any shots on the morning of the 19th December, whereas the daughter and the three sons stated that they had—that the Superintendent remarked that the mother was "an honest witness anyway." If this be true, is it not obvious that the investigation by the Chief Superintendent was of about the same value as the inquiry held by the Superintendent into his own responsibility and that of his subordinates? Is the Minister aware that these are most respectable and law-abiding people and that Martin Hayes served for nearly seven years in the National Army with the character on discharge "very good," and whether he considers that allegations made by respectable people of this type should be disregarded while the ex parte statements obtained in secret of men who would be liable to severe punishment if they admitted guilt are taken as conclusive? Does the Minister suggest that no assaults were committed on these men because there were no marks on their heads or bodies, does he maintain that shots could not have been fired over their heads because they did not sustain bullet wounds?

Is the Minister aware that Martin Hayes alleges that about three weeks ago he was requested to settle this case and that while the matter was being discussed the Sergeant of the Gárda, who has been identified as one of the assailants, walked up and down outside the door, conveying the impression that he was waiting to be called in? Is the Minister aware that I was approached on 3rd inst., and asked to get this case settled, that the intermediary who said he had seen this Sergeant took my message that an apology was essential and returned saying that the Sergeant said that I "could do my best," as the State would defend him? I ask the Minister whether he considers that attempts to square Hayes and myself are consistent with the finding of the Superintendent that he could see no justification for the statements made by complainants? I will refer the Minister to his answer on 6th November last, as reported in column 894 of the Official Debates, in which he said "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." I also refer him to his answer on column 892 on the same date in which he said, "there has been an inquiry, and the matter is closed. I am not going to put these men on a second trial." May I take it that if a Guard commits an offence for which a civilian would be prosecuted by the State, that the proper procedure is that the Guard is merely subject to a disciplinary inquiry and that such inquiry closes the matter and that the Guard will not, whether found guilty or not at such an inquiry, be brought to trial in the ordinary criminal courts? Will the Minister submit to the House the statements which were obtained from the Hayes family?

Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney

The Deputy gave us a very interesting and very eloquent speech, a good deal of it exordium. It was carefully and eloquently phrased. He then came down to make assertions about facts. I do not intend to follow him through his introductory rhetoric; I will simply deal with as many of his facts as I can deal with, in the not very extended period of time at my disposal. In the first place Hayes brought a charge against a Sergeant and a Guard. The Deputy has exceeded anything that Hayes has done, because he has brought a charge not only against the Sergeant and the Guard, but also against the Superintendent and the Chief Superintendent. He made the astonishing statement that the Superintendent would be responsible for anything which the Guards under him did, and that he would be liable to punishment for anything that the Guards serving under him did. Anything more inaccurate than that it is impossible to imagine. It is the duty of the Superintendent to keep discipline amongst the men under him, and, far from being punished if he detects breaches of discipline and reports them, it is regarded as being good work on his part. If these men had misconducted themselves upon this particular night it would be more to the advantage than to the disadvantage of the Superintendent to see that they were dealt with.

The Superintendent investigated these matters. Charges were made that two Guards, a Sergeant and a Detective Officer, fired shots. As a matter of fact there had been firing into a house in that neighbourhood and that was being investigated. As Deputies will understand, it had to be investigated there and then; it had to be investigated, so to speak, hot foot. Guards from various stations were collected together and under the general command of the Superintendent they divided so as to visit certain houses from which either information might be got or which might contain the persons who had actually perpetrated this firing outrage. The Superintendent is in a position to know that of all the Guards under him that night only the Detective Officer had a revolver. The Sergeant was in uniform and he does not carry a revolver and had not a revolver on that night. That is within the knowledge of the Superintendent. Also he knows the number of rounds which the Detective Officer who had a revolver was furnished with. He knows the number of rounds he had when he went out and he knows the number of rounds he had when he came back. It is rather difficult to understand how a man can start out with a certain number of rounds, fire two shots, and come back with the same number of rounds.

These people have made charges that shots were fired above their heads, that assaults were made upon them. They made long statements which I have here but I cannot go through them now. In the long and very full statements from the whole lot of them they give an account of being knocked down, put in a ditch and half throttled and all that sort of stuff. There is a statement made by their own mother to the effect that when they returned to the house they had no marks of violence upon them and she did not notice any mud upon their clothes. That is their mother's evidence. Now, this happened on 19th December last. There and then these men placed themselves in the hands of a firm of solicitors. Their being in the hands of a firm of solicitors, it was open to them to take whatever course they liked. They are advised by the solicitors, the courts are open to them, and it is for them if they like to take out a summons. If they wish they can take civil proceedings. The courts are open to them as they are open to everybody else. They have got, moreover, solicitors to advise them; but I find that the Deputy here seems to consider himself a better adviser than the solicitors and he proceeds to take the matter out of the solicitors' hands. I prefer to come to the conclusion that the case is a very, very bad case which has lain in solicitors' hands for two months and which has not eventuated in some form of legal proceedings.

The Deputy went on further to say something as to whether there was to be any difference in the treatment of Guards and the treatment of the ordinary public. If there is an ordinary case of assault it is for the individual who has been assaulted to take out a summons and bring proceedings. That is the ordinary procedure, and if these Hayes' have been assaulted they have that procedure ready for them. On the files before me it is rather difficult for me to deal with the matter, because if there are subsequent proceedings it is rather difficult for me, as Deputies will understand, to express a personal opinion. I do say, however, that on the statements before me, which are statements taken from these people, I do not see any reason why any abnormal step should be taken, and why these people should not be left to their ordinary remedy. They were, undoubtedly, taken out of their father's house, and they were taken out in order that they might be interrogated. It is perfectly plain that it is the correct thing for the Guards to do. A crime has been committed and it is necessary to get information on the matter. It is impossible to interrogate two or three persons together. It is perfectly obvious that if one heard a story told by the other he would stick to it. When investigating a thing of that nature it becomes perfectly obvious that statements must be taken separately. The Guards brought these persons out of the house and they simply took their statements. The Hayes' seem to have been annoyed and, having been annoyed at being taken out of their house in order that statements might be got from them, they proceeded to paint a picture in very lurid colours. Having painted it in lurid colours, they succeeded in getting an advocate in the Deputy who brought up this matter——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I must remind the Minister that it is now 11 o'clock.