asked the Minister for Justice whether he is aware that in the case of a Gárda prosecution in Dublin on or about August 27th, 1929, against a Mr. Wm. Murray for riding a motor bicycle without tax or licence, the evidence of a detective officer was recommended by the presiding Judge to be sent to the Gárda authorities for investigation; whether a Court of Inquiry was instituted to consider the case; what were the exact charges preferred against the detective officer concerned; what were the findings of the Court, and what action was taken by the Gárda authorities as the result of such findings.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Charge Against Detective Officer.
I am aware that in the case of a Gárda prosecution in the Dublin District Court on the 27th August, 1929, against one William Murray for offences against the Motor Car Acts, the District Justice suggested that the evidence given by a detective officer who was called as a witness for the defence should be brought to the notice of his authorities. As a consequence disciplinary charges were preferred against this officer to the effect that he gave false evidence in the said prosecution to contradict the evidence of the prosecuting Guard; that he was guilty of neglect of duty in failing to report promptly any evidence which he could give for the defendant, and that he made false and misleading statements in a written report to his superior officer as to his movements on the occasion in question. A sworn inquiry was held to investigate these charges and the officer was found guilty. The imposition of punishment was postponed for six months pending consideration of reports in the meantime on his conduct in the Uniform Branch to which he was transferred. Further disciplinary offences by this man have since come to light, and his dismissal from the force has been decided upon.
He has not been dismissed yet?
He is about to be dismissed.
Although he has been found guilty of these charges, he has been allowed to remain actively in the force until now?
I have already explained to the Deputy that he was found guilty, and the exact amount of the punishment was held over to see how he would conduct himself for a certain period. His conduct during that period has not been exemplary, and his dismissal was decided on.
It is a fact that he has been thought a fit and proper person to serve in the Guards after having been found guilty of these charges?
He was allowed to serve on probation.
He was thought fit to serve.