Skip to main content

Prosecutions For Unlawful Assembly

Volume 175: debated on Wednesday 12 June 1907

The text on this page has been created from Hansard archive content, it may contain typographical errors.

I beg to ask Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland whether the Crown will take any further action in the case of a charge of unlawful assembly preferred against certain persons at the last Castlereagh Petty Sessions, on the hearing of which the Bench refused to grant an adjournment to enable the Crown solicitor—whose absence appeared to be due to the action of those engaged for the defence—to be present, proceeded with the hearing of the charge in the absence of this official, and refused, notwithstanding the clear prima facie case made out by the prosecution, to take information and return the accused for trial; and whether, having authorised the prosecution, he intends to send up a Bill to the grand jury at the forthcoming assizes.

I beg also to ask Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland whether his attention has been called to the observations of Mr. Heverin, solicitor, on Thursday last, in court, at Ballintubber, county Roscommon, when he stated that the people of Roscommon were not lawless, although they had been described as such by carrion crows, and that they had it on the authority of Lord Denman, a member of the Government, that cattle driving was not a serious offence, and that thereupon the accused were acquitted; what action, if any, he proposes to take; and will he send up a Bill to the grand jury at the forthcoming Roscommon Assizes.

I can answer this and the following Question together. The facts are that summonses were issued against certain persons charging them with unlawful assembly, as stated in the Questions. These summonses would in ordinary course have come on for hearing at the last Ballintubber Petty Sessions, held on Thursday last, the 6th instant, and the Crown solicitor was prepared to attend, and had made arrangements for all the Crown witnesses to do so. On Wednesday morning, however, Mr. Heverin, solicitor for the accused parties, telegraphed to him asking him to consent to an adjournment to the next petty sessions. To this request the Crown solicitor, acting under instructions from the Government, consented. The district inspector in charge of the case was then at once informed of the adjournment which had been agreed upon, and told that he need not have the principal witnesses for the Crown in attendance. Late on that evening the solicitor for the accused telegraphed withdrawing his request for an adjournment, but it was then too late to alter the arrangements which had been made. On the following day an application for an adjournment was made by the district inspector. The solicitor for the accused persons opposed this application, although he had himself asked the Crown to consent to it on the morning before. The magistrates refused the application for an adjournment, and the case was heard in the absence of the Crown solicitor and of the principal Crown witnesses. In these circumstances the magistrates refused to receive information. The evidence in the case has since been submitted to me, and I have directed that a bill against the defendants shall be sent up to the grand jury at the next assizes, as I do not think that the decision of the magistrates under the circumstances can be accepted as conclusive. I have no information as to the observations which may have been made by the solicitor for the defendants.

Will the right hon. Gentleman undertake that either he or the Solicitor-General will prosecute in one of these cases so as to show that the Government are firm in their determination to suppress these raids?

I beg to ask Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland whether, in cases where justices, for improper motives or owing to intimidation, refuse information in clear cases of unlawful assembly, it is his intention to exercise his power of sending up bills of indictment to grand juries against the offenders; and whether he has in any case hitherto exercised this power.

I have no means of ascertaining the motives which actuate justices in their decisions, nor am I aware that they have been subjected to intimidation in any case. In deciding whether or not I shall send up bills of indictment to grand juries where justices have refused informations I am guided entirely by the evidence available, and not by any speculations as to the motives which actuated the justices.

Surely the right hon. Gentleman does not intend to send these cases direct to the Court of Appeal?