HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE OF THE IRISH FREE STATE

LYNCH V. FITZGERALD AND OTHERS (1938) I.R. 382

The present prose work is a description of the case Lynch V. Fitzgerald & Others which took place in Ireland’s High Court in 1938. A boy was killed by the detective service agents repressing an attempt to disrupt a cattle sale in Cork. The trial took place in the court of Justice Hanna.

It was described that the Sheriff of Cork seized number of Cattle under a warrant from the Irish Land Commission and attempted to sell them with a force of about 200 Guards with about 12 armed detectives was placed outside the yard, and 40 Guards including 10 ordinary detectives were placed inside the place of sale. The security was there in Marsh’s Yard in Copley Street, Cork due to a threatened demonstration against the sale of cattle.

Only the prospective buyers were there to take part in the sales as it was said that the buyers and their representatives were only allowed in the yard. For some time before the hour fixed for the sale, a large crowd of about 1500 people had collected in Anglesea Street which was the main street into which Copley Street opened. By the time, a lorry filled with men carrying sticks came through the crowd in Anglesea Street, turned into Copley Street. It was driven against the several barriers of the Guards and crashed into the gates of the yard breaking through it.  After a few moments, the crowd outside the yard was held in check with the exception of one or two, who succeeded in entering into the yard. Immediately, the three detectives of the Special Branch of the Civic Guards Moore, Condon, and Rodgers opened fire which killed Lynch, who had followed the lorry to see what was happening.

Against this unlawful event, the father of killed boy filed a case against three detectives of the Special Branch of the Civic Guards Moore, Condon, and Rodgers as the first three defendants and the fourth defendant was Mr. Fitzgerald, the Chief Superintendent of Civic Guards who was in charge of the Civic Guards at Cork and he claimed damages under the Fatal Accidents Act, 1846.

Justice Hanna expressed his views on this case in the trial that there is no case or authority dealing with the position of an uncontrolled body of men in the employment of the State left to use their firearms at their own discretion. He further quoted Case of Arms (1596), ‘a cry of made for weapons to keep the peace’ and in later cases, with instances where the soldiers of the regular Army have fired upon civilians either with or without orders. In addition, he mentioned Curwood’s Hawkins’ Pleas of the Crown in which the regulation of firearms was given. Apart from the above he cited various acts, reports, legal papers with regard to the same.

The justice expressed the three defendants did not follow the instructions issued to the  Civic Guards on the use of firearms, dated November 24^th, 1932, copies of which the Chief Commissioner had sent for the use of the Court. The justice said that, according to law, armed forces could use firearms only against an unlawful or riotous assembly only where such a course was necessary as a last resort to preserve life. But what was done by the defendants was not so and they violated the law. The Justice came to the conclusion that the shot was done not to protect lives of buyers and others and completely was an unjustifiable act and they (the three defendants) were acted as a group with a common unlawful purpose. So, the Justice imposed a damage of 300 Pounds in favor of the Plaintiff under the Fatal Accidents Act, 1846. Further, the Justice ordered for the criminal liability against the three defendants.

*****

*****