asked the Minister for Justice whether, in the case of Thomas Corbett v. James O'Driscoll, Thomas O'Roarke, Joseph Gantley and Patrick McNamara, Gárda Síochána and detectives, where judgement was given for £500 damages and costs against defendants on a charge of false imprisonment, assault and threat to murder, the Department of Justice has undertaken to pay the costs in this case, or has paid them; and whether these officers were carrying out the instructions of a higher authority in the manner in which they sought to force evidence from alleged witnesses in connection with the disappearance of Laurence Griffin, of Stradbally; and whether the State will pay the damages if it is proved that these officers were carrying out the orders of a higher authority.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Action against Gárdaí.
The answers to all parts of the question (except the last, which does not arise) are in the negative.
Then the Minister does not accept responsibility?
That follows.
Will the Minister repudiate and forbid the use of such methods by the police of threats and violence?
Of course.
He repudiates and forbids them?
Of course, Deputy.
Why this change of policy?
There is no change of policy. I have always said so to the Dáil.
asked the Minister for Justice whether, in the case of Corbett v. O'Driscoll and others, the Attorney-General proposes to proceed upon the statement of the judge in this case, namely, that, whatever the verdict, the implication of perjury was involved against the persons found against; and whether proceedings for perjury will be instituted accordingly against the defendant.
The Deputy has quoted only part of the material portion of the judge's observations, as reported in the Press. As so reported, the judge, having made the observation to which the Deputy refers, went on immediately to say that "he would have the power if he thought any party had committed perjury—an offence which was very common, unfortunately, in their Courts—to refer the matter to the Attorney-General to take what steps he liked."
The Judge has not referred the papers to the Attorney-General, and I think it is a fair assumption from his not doing so that in his opinion a charge of perjury against the Guards could not be sustained.
Will the Minister call for all the papers in this matter and proceed accordingly?
It is perfectly obvious a prosecution could not lie in this case.
Is the Minister aware of the full statement of the judge on that occasion, that what he said that "whatever the verdict the jury might——
The Deputy must not quote, he must ask a question.
I wish to know if the Minister was aware of the full statement.
The statement is in the Deputy's question if he would only read his own question, but evidently he has not done so.
That is the way the Minister has of putting things——
The Deputy can put down another question. He must not put something on record by way of a question.
Is the Minister aware that the statement of the judge as I quoted it is so full and ample that the party defeated in this action could not escape from the charge of perjury?
No. The Deputy gave half the quotation from the judge, I completed it and followed down the sentence. It is perfectly obvious as I said that a prosecution could not lie in this case. The Deputy surely knows that if a prosecution is to be maintained successfully for perjury there must be corroboration of the testimony of the witness upon which it is brought. There was no corroboration in this case at all.
Will the Minister state why these men were called upon to resign?
If there was no corroboration of the evidence how could the Minister call upon these men to resign?
That is a separate question.