|
|
|
|
MIONTUAIRISC NA FIANAISE(Minutes of Evidence)Dé Máirt, 9 Samhain, 1971Tuesday, 9th November, 1971The Committee met at 4.15 p.m.
DEPUTY P. HOGAN in the chair. ORDER OF DAIL OF 1st DECEMBER, 1970.Chief Superintendent John P. Fleming, accompanied by Mr. Henry Hickey, S.C. and Mr. Hugh O’Flaherty, barrister-at-law, instructed by the Chief State Solicitor called.Captain Kelly called.12090. Chairman.—This is cross-examination of Captain Kelly by Chief Superintendent Fleming. May I ask you, for the record, Chief Superintendent, who is representing you or who is advising you? —Chief Superintendent Fleming.—Mr. Hickey. Mr. Hickey.—I appear for Chief Superintendent Fleming with Hr. Hugh O’Flaherty. My name is Henry Hickey. We were instructed by the Chief State Solicitor. 12091. Chairman.—Very good, you may proceed. The only point I will make is that you would adhere to the evidence as has been given here, from our recorded evidence. You have all our recorded evidence there in front of you? —Mr. Hickey.—Yes I have. I will endeavour to do that. 12092. Chairman.—Will you give us the reference covering each question? —Mr. Hickey.—Certainly. Captain Kelly.—I would like to have the same facility as Chief Superintendent Fleming had the last day and to make an initial statement as he made. Chairman.—Yes. Captain Kelly.—I would like to make this statement to clarify some points prior to this cross-examination by Chief Superintendent Fleming, a cross-examination to which I have quite voluntarily agreed in order to help this Committee to arrive at the truth, and, in the process, to counteract the blatant defamation of my character by the false evidence of Chief Superintendent Fleming. On the last day here, Wednesday, 3rd November, 1971, Chief Superintendent Fleming admitted that the bulk, if not all, of his evidence before this Committee was hearsay, in other words, that it was not evidence. When pressed for his hearsay sources, he took refuge in the claim that he might have a dead man on his hands if he disclosed the name of his informant or informants. As a person acquainted with how the security services of this State have operated over a period of years I accept that there is an element of truth in the Superintendent’s “dead man” claim. In every security service in the world, one of the primary aims is to obtain an “inside source”, that is an informant inside the illegal or subversive organisation under surveillance. That is elementary, as it is also elementary that such an “inside man” is cultivated and maintained, but what is also elementary is that any illegal or subversive organisation realises this and, in consequence, it is part of any such organisation’s purposes to plant its own “inside man or men” to feed information to the investigating agency. This is the only explanation—that Chief Superintendent Fleming was and is being used by his informants—that presents itself to me as to why Chief Superintendent Fleming should come in here and swear to hearsay, which is absolutely and utterly false to my definite knowledge. This would also explain why other witnesses before this Committee should refer to the sources of information available to the Chief Superintendent as being dubious and why, for example, the former Minister for Justice, Mr. Moran, should describe the supposed information as being of “Dúirt bean liom go ndúirt bean léi” variety at paragraph 11802. At paragraph 11774, in relation to the Chief Superintendent’s evidence, Mr. Moran states: The source I believe he is referring to —cross-checking—is a source that was not reporting direct to his section at all and a source which was regarded as very doubtful by Commissioner Wymes and myself. This throws some light on Chief Superintendent Fleming’s superiors’ evaluation of his sources and is strangely in contradiction to Chief Superintendent Fleming’s answer to the following question here the last day. The question posed was: Yet in answer to Deputy Burke, Question 5643, you said that your information was absolutely accurate? To this question the Chief Superintendent answered an unequivocal “Yes”. I know, from my own knowledge, that “hearsay” put forward here as truth by Chief Superintendent Fleming is utterly and absolutely false. Therefore, when I put forward the thesis that Chief Superintendent Fleming has been fed “planted” information, I am trying to be as fair as possible to the Chief Superintendent. It is the only interpretation that permits the Chief Superintendent’s giving of totally false evidence without it being classified as malicious and, in fact, perjury. It means, however, that, even accepting this interpretation, Chief Superintendent Fleming is criminally and disgracefully in neglect of his duty in permitting himself and his office to be used as the purveyor of false information to this Committee. However, there is evidence before this Committee that largely precludes acceptance of even this condemnatory, if charitable, interpretation of the Superintendent’s so-called evidence. I would like to read Chief Superintendent Fleming’s replies to questions here the last day concerning reports to his superiors, and liaison between Army Intelligence and the Garda authorities. I had a marked copy of the evidence but, unfortunately, I left it at home. I hope you will bear with me for a moment while I look through the copy of the evidence to see where it is. It is on this question of reporting generally. The question asked by Mr. Sutherland was—Do I need to quote all this? 12093. Chairman.—The question number? —It is 11952 as far as I know. I do not think that is the correct one. This covers an aspect you might remember of questions that were asked, to whom did the superintendent report and was there liaison between the Castle and Military Intelligence. I just want to find that. 12094. Deputy Tunney.—11955. —Witness.—The one I want to get at is this question of levels of reporting through, whom the superintendent reported through and the liaison between the Army and the guards. That is not the exact one, I do not think. 12095. Deputy FitzGerald.—11997. —Witness.—Yes, this is 12002 there where you have: Do you remember whether you made the report verbally or in writing? —It would have been in writing, yes. And that was made at the time? —It would have been made very shortly after the time. Would you accept that at this time, from your own knowledge, there was a liaison between Army Intelligence and the police? —I expect there was, yes. Don’t you know quite well that there was—— —Yes, there— There were regular meetings? —I am not aware of that. You are not aware of that. —Regular meetings? In the Castle between the police authorities and Army Intelligence? —If I may ask, who would represent the police authorities? I am asking you whether or not you are aware of the fact that there were regular meetings? —I am not aware of regular meetings. Are you aware that Chief Superintendent, as he then was, Pat Malone was in regular contact with Army Intelligence? —Chief Superintendent Pat Malone was never in the Castle until he was promoted Deputy Assistant Commissioner some months ago. I will leave it at that for the moment. I can refer back to it if I need to. I think that is the point I want to make. To put it quite bluntly, Chief Superintendent Fleming was not only being evasive, but he was being dishonest when he gave this evidence. From my own knowledge as an officer of Army Intelligence over a period of 10 years I know, and Chief Superintendent Fleming knows, that he reports direct to Section C 3, Crime Section C 3 in Garda headquarters. That section is the responsibility of a chief superintendent and during the period in question the chief superintendent in charge was Chief Superintendent Pat Malone, now Assistant Commissioner Malone. Section C 3, or the chief superintendent in charge of it, is responsible for detective work in the State generally, is responsible for subversive organisations. Aliens for instance, also come under his wing, under the wing of this chief superintendent. Chief Superintendent Fleming knows this quite well. He knows it as well as I do, and the reason why he did not tell the whole truth to this Committee on this question of reporting was because he knows that Chief Superintendent Malone, as Chief Superintendent Fleming’s superior in security matters generally, did not bring the hearsay which Mr. Fleming now puts forward as truth to the notice of the Army authorities. Specifically he did not bring it to the notice of the Director of Intelligence. When asked here the last day: “Are you aware that Chief Superintendent”— as he then was—“Pat Malone was in regular contact with Army Intelligence?” Chief Superintendent Fleming avoided the question. I suggest he did so for a purpose, and I suggest further that he knows quite well that the major co-ordinating link between the two major security agencies in this State, that is, the Military Intelligence and the Garda, was, by virtue of his position at the time, Chief Superintendent Pat Malone. When asked by Mr. Sutherland here the last day concerning liaison between police authorities in the Castle and Army Intelligence—I have called that out there, if I remember—Chief Superintendent Fleming answered: “I am not aware of regular meetings”. This is a downright lie. In my capacity as personal staff officer to the Director of Intelligence during the period in question there was regular liaison between a senior officer in Military Intelligence and the special detective unit of which Chief Superintendent Fleming has charge, and, as often as not, that army officer met none other than Chief Superintendent Fleming. Yet this man comes in here and states: “I am not aware of regular meetings”. In fact contact at this level was routine, and has being going on, to my knowledge, at least since I joined Military Intelligence in 1960. Actually during 1961 or thereabouts I carried out this liaison work for Military Intelligence and I know that, on my second visit to the Castle, I was introduced to the then Chief Superintendent, Phil MacMahon. These are the facts and Mr. Fleming knows them as well as I do, probably better, and he also knows as I know, that every tittle tattle of information concerning Army personnel vis-á-vis the security situation in particular, whether hearsay or otherwise, is conveyed as a matter of urgency to the Director of Intelligence through the channels I have mentioned. The crimes against national security—and that is what they are in effect—of which Chief Superintendent Fleming now accuses me, in fact, so outrageous in the security context that not alone would they have been reported to the Director of Intelligence but they would have caused a major sensation in that office leading to a major and thorough investigation. That is why Chief Superintendent Fleming was not willing, or hesitated, to tell the truth to this Committee concerning the chain of command in the Garda and why he denied knowledge of the very specific links by which security information is co-ordinated between Military Intelligence and the Garda. He knows that the hearsay, which he is putting forward as truth now, if it had any basis in fact whatsoever, would have been investigated long before my retiral from the Army in May, 1970. Therefore, I put it to Chief Superintendent Fleming that he knows quite well that the evidence which he attributes to his informants is false and that is why he misled this committee concerning reporting and methods of reporting generally. He was merely attempting to cover up his unsustainable position. In doing so he told a further lie to this Committee when he stated: “I am not aware of regular meetings.” The above comment, however, only refers to portion of Chief Superintendent Fleming’s evidence, that is, the portion which he attributes to his informants. There is other evidence which he has given to this Committee which is self-evidently false. I refer to paragraph 9938 of Book 19 where Chief Superintendent Fleming stated: I am also aware that he—— referring to me ——categorically denied having met Cathal Goulding. He said it here in evidence and the following evening he admitted that he met him three times. That is a mischievous, malicious and completely false statement thrown-in in a gratuitous manner by Mr. Fleming. By reference to the actual evidence given by me before this Committee it can be shown to be such. Unfortunately, I have not got the reference here, but I think the Committee are aware of it. As an experienced police officer Chief Superintendent Fleming could only have made this false statement in an attempt to publicly discredit me, being, at that time, unaware that the Supreme Court ruling would make him accountable for such malicious false statements. There is another part of Chief Superintendent Fleming’s evidence to this Committee which is undoubtedly false and it is not hearsay. It was referred to here the last day, paragraphs 11930 to 11940—this is on this question vis-á-vis Boland or Gibbons, which Minister was mentioned on May 2nd. I do not think it is necessary to repeat the evidence in full. It is quite clear that Chief Superintendent Fleming states that he mentioned Boland in contradiction to my claim that he mentioned Gibbons, so I can refer back to it, if necessary. Is that satisfactory, Mr. Chairman? 12096.—Chairman.—Yes. Witness.—Here Mr. Fleming sticks to his story, false, as I know, that Mr. Boland was the third Minister along with Blaney and Haughey that he mentioned to me as being involved in the arms importation when I was under arrest on May 2nd, 1970. He states that he mentioned Mr. Boland— I will quote Chief Superintendent Fleming’s evidence: . . . .You said, I think, that what in fact happened was that you asked him if Mr. Blaney, Mr. Haughey and Mr. Boland were involved?—That is correct, yes. Why did you mention Mr. Boland? —I had my own reason for mentioning him at the time. What was the reason?—I am not prepared to say what the reason was. Why not?—Because it involves other information. In fact, he did not mention Mr. Boland. The third Minister he mentioned as being concerned with the arms importation was Mr. Gibbons and, on that morning, he went further: he suggested to me that Mr. Lynch, the Taoiseach, was also fully aware of the importation. My reply was non-committal and I used words to the effect that it was time I was let go. The members of the Government Mr. Fleming mentioned on May 2nd, 1970, were Haughey, Blaney, Gibbons and the Taoiseach, Mr. Lynch. Before this Committee Mr. Fleming has substituted the name of Boland for Gibbons and, last day, in the evidence I refer to here, he insinuated he had information involving Mr. Boland. As the person most closely associated with the arms importation, or one of them, at least, I have never heard Boland mentioned in connection with it and I will challenge Chief Superintendent Fleming to substantiate his claim, or implied claim, that Boland was. I put it to this Committee—I know, in fact, that Chief Superintendent Fleming told this Committee an utter and complete lie when he stated Mr. Boland was the third Minister mentioned by him on May 2nd and not Mr. Gibbons. There is further evidence to show this is so. I have here with me a copy of a note which I wish to introduce in evidence. 12097. Chairman.—Evidence cannot be submitted at this stage. —I beg your pardon. 12098. Chairman.—But, if you want to give evidence, that can be arranged. —This is not evidence. This is very important to this statement or reply by Chief Superintendent Fleming. 12099. Chairman.—If it is part of your evidence, that is all right; but, if you tender it as evidence, that is a different matter. —I will refer to it as a note, so. 12100. Deputy FitzGerald.—If he is referring to it, can he have it as evidence? 12101. Chairman.—If he wants to, yes. 12102. Deputy MacSharry.—He can but we do not have to bother. Witness.—There was a note to contradict Mr. Fleming before I mentioned Chief Superintendent Fleming before, but not the note—the reference. I believe, and have very good reason to believe, that it is a copy of the note on which Mr. Cosgrave based his claim on May 6th, 1970, his claim in Dáil Éireann that Messrs. Blaney, Haughey and myself were involved in what Mr. Cosgrave claimed was an illegal importation of arms. On that day Mr. Cosgrave stated in Dail Eireann that he had, and I quote: “received a copy of a document on official garda notepaper”. This particular document says: “a plot to bring in arms from the continent worth £80,000 under the guise of the Department of Defence has been discovered. Those involved are Captain Kelly, the former Minister for Finance, the former Minister for Agriculture and two associates of the Minister”. The point I want to make here is that, on that note was the name of Gibbons; not Boland, mark you, but Gibbons, in relation to which the following exchange took place in Dáil Éireann on May 8th when Deputy Richie Ryan of Fine Gael stated: “Deputy Gibbons’ name was mentioned”. To which the Minister for Industry and Commerce, Mr. George Colley replied, “Deputy Ryan’s name might be mentioned in connection with something, but that would not necessarily mean that Deputy Ryan was involved”. To which Deputy Ryan stated: “He (the Taoiseach) did not know, but he knows now, that Deputy Cosgrave and a Dublin newspaper received Garda Síochána notepaper with the name of Deputy Gibbons on it, associating him with this sordid transaction. Deputy Gibbons: An anonymous note”. Neither Deputy Colley nor Gibbons, both members of the Government, denied the existence of the note but, in fact, by their comments, supported Deputy Ryan’s assertion. Therefore, it is clear that Deputy Ryan’s statement was true and that Mr. Cosgrave had concealed the name of Gibbons. I am not concerned with that aspect of the matter now, however, but I am concerned with from where Mr. Cosgrave obtained his “document on official garda notepaper” with the name of Gibbons and not Boland upon it. I suggest to the Committee that Mr. Cosgrave, in justice to me, should be called by this Committee to supply the name of the person who gave him this note. Last day here, paragraphs 11941 to 11943, you have Mr. Fleming asked if he, as the man charged with State security particularly, made any inquiries as to where the paper came from. He answered: “No”. Have you, as the man charged with State security particularly, made any inquiries as to where that paper came from?—No. Whether officially, or unofficially, surely you made some inquiries?—No, not really. I made no inquiries. Were you totally disinterested?—I am satisfied it did not come from my department. Mr. Fleming stated, despite the fact that Mr. Cosgrave clearly implied in Dail Eireann on May 6th that the note came from official garda sources, that he did not investigate where it came from. I put it to this Committee that Mr. Fleming had reason for not carrying out such an investigation, one of them being that, if the note was traced to its source, it would clearly emerge that Gibbons was the third Minister on May 2nd and not Boland. Mr. Fleming knows this as well as I do; in fact, I quite categorically state that he lied to this Committee under oath when he denied mentioning Gibbons to me on May 2nd and substituted Boland. I believe that Mr. Cosgrave, by naming his informant, or informants, is in a position to confirm what I say and that it is essential that he should be called to so name the informant or informants before this Committee. I also state, and believe, that when these informants are exposed Chief Superintendent Fleming need not worry about having a dead man on his hands. To conclude, generally all of Mr. Fleming’s evidence is false and, on this question of Boland vis-á-vis Gibbons, he is telling an utter lie, which can be proved as such in the manner I have outlined. In paragraph 11748, Mr. Ó Móráin, to whom I have referred already, stated: “It appears to me that he has been completely inaccurate in some of his evidence to this body”. I will go further: His evidence before this body is false and, to my definite knowledge, he has told a deliberate lie on oath to this Committee re Gibbons vis-á-vis Boland, which according to the Oxford dictionary, is perjury. Therefore Chief Superintendent Fleming, by his action before this Committee, has prostituted himself and his office, has brought into disrepute a branch of the security services in this State and, by so bringing such an institution of State into disrepute, has tilted at the structure of the State itself, because the structure of the State depends upon the integrity of its institutions, and especially so on the integrity of such as its security services. 12103. Deputy Dowling.—Can we have the document now? 12104. Deputy FitzGerald.—Is it being submitted in evidence? 12105. Deputy MacSharry.—We can have a look at it anyhow. You did not see it before, did you? 12106. Chairman.—Mr. Hickey, we are looking at this document which Captain Kelly has submitted and we are making a copy of it and we will give it to you in a moment. —Mr. Hickey.—Thank you, Chairman. 12107. Chairman.—Now, Captain Kelly, in respect of this document which we have passed round—— 12108. Deputy Dowling.—May I just ask one question in relation to this document? 12109. Chairman.—May I ask one first? In relation to this document that has been passed around, we have all seen it now and a copy has been made for Mr. Hickey and I presume for the press also. May I ask you the source of this document, to establish its creditability here with us? —Captain Kelly.—I can’t and I am not depending on the document as such. I am depending on Deputy Richie Ryan’s declaration in Dáil Éireann to prove that Mr. Gibbons’ name was on the document that Mr. Cosgrave had. 12110. Chairman.—Is this a photocopy of the original document? —It is a purported photocopy. I said I believe, and I have good reason to believe, and I have gone no further than that with the document. So I base my contention that Mr. Gibbons’ name was on the document in Mr. Cosgrave’s possession on what Mr. Richie Ryan said. 12111. Deputy Dowling.—May I ask a question? 12112. Deputy Collins.—Could we have the reference to the Dáil debate in respect of that quotation, the Dáil debate reference? —The 8th May, page 798, Deputy Ryan speaking, half way down the first column. 12113. The column? —797, so. 12114. Deputy Dowling.—In relation to the document I should like to ask Captain Kelly—he implied that this was a copy of the document that Deputy Cosgrave obtained. Is that quite so? —It was given to me that it was and I can only state that I was told this. It came by a circuitous route. As you know, a copy of this document was given to a newspaper chain in this country and this is where the copy that you have there emerged. 12115. Is it not quite possible that the— —I cannot prove the document as such. 12116. Is it not quite possible—— 12117. Deputy Nolan.—Are there any people here who may have seen the original document that Deputy Cosgrave was supposed to have? 12118. Deputy Dowling.—May I just point out—— 12119. Chairman.—Gentlemen, I think we are straying a bit. I think that document and its credibility and any aspects to it, I think, is more properly the concern of the counsel here, Mr. Hickey, who is appearing for Chief Superintendent Fleming, not for us. Maybe I strayed myself. I ask you not to enter into cross-examination of Captain Kelly about it. You may do so afterwards. 12120. Deputy Dowling.—We may do so after the—— 12121. Chairman.—Yes. I think it would be proper that we should stand aside and let Mr. Hickey deal with it vis-á-vis Captain Kelly rather than that we should get ourselves involved in this. 12122. Mr. Hickey.—May I commence, Mr. Chairman? Chairman.—Yes. Before you commence, may I say to Captain Kelly that apparently this is the usual legal procedure to advise you that you are not bound to answer any question that might incriminate you. —Captain Kelly.—Thank you. 12123. Mr. Hickey.—May the Committee take it, Captain Kelly, that you are thoroughly familiar with the minutes of the evidence that has been given before the Committee on all the occasions up to now? —Captain Kelly.—If I may, I would like to ask another question before the cross-examination begins. This is a very personal question: Whom does counsel represent? Does he represent the State or does he represent Mr. Fleming personally? 12124. Mr. Hickey.—I have already signified to the Chairman that I represent Chief Superintendent Fleming. I said that. —Yes, but the point is, does the State employ you? I mean, you are not personally representing Chief Superintendent Fleming as an individual, as a person as distinct from his functions? 12125. Mr. Hickey.—Mr. Chairman, with respect, I submit that I am not here to be cross-examined. —Captain Kelly.—I wish to make a point then concerning that. If this question will not be answered—my reason for making this point is that, previously I have been cross-examined by a representative of the State, and during the course of a court case, the first arms trial, we had a prosecuting counsel who found himself in the position of making the following statement to the court, that despite quite a detailed search, the directive or copy of it of 6th February, 1970 would not be found. It later emerged that this was completely untrue. So, the point I want to make is this, and this is why I want to make this distinction: that counsel briefed for the State previously had misled the courts of this country. So, I want to get this on the record and to know exactly whom or what counsel represents. 12126. Mr. Hickey.—Mr. Chairman, I consider I have signified my representation quite clearly on two occasions and I do not feel called upon to do so a third time. 12127. Chairman.—Are you satisfied, Captain Kelly? —Well, is it the State? I am not sure is it the State or Mr. Fleming he represents? 12128. Mr. Hickey.—For the third and last time I represent Chief Superintendent Fleming. —Captain Kelly.—In his personal capacity? As an individual, not as an arm of the State? 12129. Mr. Hickey.—Again, Chairman, I submit that I am not bound to undergo a cross-examination by Captain Kelly. —Captain Kelly.—Well I am being cross-examined here for defamation. I do not blame the State; Chief Superintendent Fleming is the man I am talking about. 12130. Chairman.—I am advised that Mr. Hickey is correct. That is as far as I can go. Captain Kelly.—I have made my point. 12131. Mr. Hickey.—Now, Captain Kelly, I was asking you or rather attempting to ask you if you were familiar with the minutes of the evidence adduced before this Committee? —I have read most of the evidence. 12132. And I gather from your opening statement that you are familiar with the details of most of them? —I have a pretty good memory especially when people tell lies concerning me. 12133. In particular I take it that you would be familiar with the evidence given by Chief Superintendent Fleming on the previous occasions he has appeared before the Committee? —It shocked me and disgusted me. 12134. That is not quite the answer, Captain Kelly. I am asking you are you familiar with it? —I read it today, some of it, the more pertinent portions of it. 12135. Chairman.—Captain Kelly, even in your own interest it would be better if you just answered the questions. I understand the emotional involvement but—— Captain Kelly.—Actually, Mr. Chairman, I might as well state my feeling here. I am disgusted to have to come in here at all and say what I said here today. 12136. Chairman.—Still it would be better if you would just answer the questions as he puts them, and if you feel a question is wrong, tell me. Captain Kelly.—Actually, I would like to know what he is cross-examining me on, as a matter of fact. 12137 Mr. Hickey.—Perhaps if I got an opportunity to proceed with it, Captain, it might become apparent. 12138. Chairman.—If you will refer to the evidence that was given in, I think it was the Supreme Court, it states there: “An accused, in advance of cross-examination, cannot be required to state what the purpose of cross-examination may be.” I cannot help you that way either. —I cannot give a legal opinion on that. I am supposed to be cross-examined on defamatory statements I made about Chief Inspector Fleming. I would like to know of any defamatory statements I made about him prior to his coming in here and telling what I call a mess of lies. 12139. Chairman.—I am sure he will come to that in a moment. 12140. Mr. Hickey.—Captain Kelly, is it correct to say that you took it on yourself to instruct counsel to cross-examine Chief Superintendent Fleming on the evidence given by him before the Committee?—— —I instructed him. 12141. May we take it that in the course of such instructions you gave your own counsel full details of the various points you wished to be put to Chief Superintendent Fleming?—— —Because of the mass of evidence given by Chief Superintendent Fleming and because of the time available to me to instruct counsel I could not do so. It was rather haphazard because of the time available. 12142. When did you first decide to instruct counsel?—— —I think it was two days prior to the cross-examination. 12143. Two days prior to the cross-examination?—— —The cross-examination was on Wednesday. I think I rang him on Sunday night. 12144. You are aware, I take it, that much of the evidence given by Chief Superintendent Fleming was given in the early part of this year?—— —Yes. 12145. I suggest to you that if you were concerned about its so-called defamatory nature that you would take taken steps to instruct counsel long before two days before the last hearing?—— —That is a ridiculous submission and I will tell you why. I put forward a reason here. I put forward, in my submission here, that Mr. Cosgrave is in a position to counteract what was a direct and downright lie by Mr. Fleming. Actually, if you go back to the papers—the daily papers I am speaking about—shortly after Mr. Fleming’s first coming in here I issued what was headlined as a challenge to Mr. Cosgrave to come forward and tell the truth as regards this question of naming Boland or Gibbons on May 2nd. Furthermore, I have been put to a lot of expense by false evidence since May, 1970 and I do not intend having any more, one reason why I have no counsel here this evening. 12146. Do we take it then, that you thought Mr. Cosgrave would be able to disprove Chief Superintendent Fleming’s evidence without any assistance from you?—— —What has your question got to do with defamatory evidence that I have given here?—— 12147. Captain Kelly, are you capable of answering “yes” or “no”?—— —I will not answer “yes” or “no” to a question unless I know what the question is about. This has nothing to do with what is under investigation. 12148. Mr. Chairman, I submit that it has, that my questions are all bearing directly on the submissions made by Captain Kelly at the start of this. —Mention one defamatory statement I made about Chief Superintendent Fleming and I will answer it. 12149. Chairman.—You have introduced a document here, you see. —I have given my submission and I think the submission is pretty clear. I have been asked why I took no action previously. I did take action previously on the lines outlined in my submission. 12150. Will you tell us, Captain Kelly, why the points contained in your submission were not put to Chief Superintendent Fleming by your counsel on the 3rd November?—— —That is completely irrelevant, it has nothing got to do with it. If I neglected to brief my counsel properly it has nothing got to do with the question before the Committee here. It is only sidetracking. 12151. Are you now telling the Committee that you neglected to brief your counsel properly?—— —I am telling them nothing of the sort. Do not twist words. Come to the point. 12152. I am using your own words, Captain Kelly. —Get to the point. 12153. I certainly will get to the point very shortly. Are you telling the Committee that you neglected to brief counsel properly?— —How do I know whether I did or not. 12154. May we take it that the answer is yes then? —You may take nothing of the sort because the question is completely irrelevant and means nothing in the context of what we are here for. 12155. It was you who used the words “neglected to brief counsel properly” not me, Captain Kelly?—— —You are framing words. Get to the point. 12156. Deputy FitzGerald.—Do I understand you to submit that the question is irrelevant?—— —Of course it is. 12157. Perhaps that could be put to the Chairman. —Yes. 12158. Chairman.—Captain Kelly is deciding the relevancy himself but it is not his decision. 12159. Deputy FitzGerald.—Quite. —The question is completely irrelevant as far as I am concerned. It has nothing whatever to do with the case in point. 12160. Chairman.—It does not seem to be a very damaging question. If you think it is going to damage you will you tell me?—— —It is not going to damage me at all but it is only playing with words. Did I neglect, did I not neglect? I briefed him in my own way. I briefed him and whether I briefed him rightly or wrongly it does not matter one iota because the question is completely irrelevant. I submit that to you formally, Mr. Chairman. 12161. In your own interest I think you should try to meet some of the questions. —Not that sort of questioning. 12162. Deputy FitzGerald.—Is the question relevant? 12163. Chairman.—I think so. Deputy FitzGerald.—Right. 12164. Mr. Hickey.—Captain Kelly, may we take it then that it did not matter, as far as you were concerned, whether you briefed your counsel rightly or wrongly?— —I am refusing to answer this type of question. It has nothing got to do with the case in point. I am here. I submitted, I agreed to come in here and answer questions on whether or not I defamed Chief Superintendent Fleming and briefing my counsel is not defaming Chief Superintendent Fleming, whether I did it rightly or wrongly. That is the answer to the question. 12165. You appreciate, I take it, that it is easier to make a statement that goes unchallenged than to put specific points to a witness, whom you wish to discredit? —I have stated my case here quite plainly and, if I have defamed Chief Superintendent Fleming, tell me where I have defamed him. Ask me why, if you think I did, and I will tell you. 12166. Captain Kelly, will you come to the point. I am merely asking you why you did not instruct your counsel to put the various matters to Chief Superintendent Fleming? —That is my business. 12167. That is your business. Are you saying that your counsel made a mess of it, or that you made a mess of it, or that both of you made a mess of it? —You are saying it. 12168. Are you not disagreeing with me? —You are talking nonsense. It is not related, as I tell you, to the matter under inquiry at all, so the sooner you get to the point the sooner we get out of here. 12169. Perhaps if you had not indulged in your opening peroration we would be a lot further along the road, Captain Kelly? —It is the truth. 12170. I want to ask you about this document that you produced today. Where did you get it? —I think I have already told the Committee where I got it. I said, as far as I am aware, it emerged from information at my disposal, which is hearsay information. 12171. Oh! come, Captain Kelly, offering hearsay information before the Committee? —Enough of it has been produced already so it is no harm to produce another bit. 12172. Perhaps you could indicate to the Committee when you got this document? —I will not because it is not necessary. I put it in because I said I believe that it is the document on which Mr. Cosgrave based his February 6th announcement in Dáil Éireann. I will go no further than that. I put it forward as evidence to substantiate the point that I want to make about what Deputy Richie Ryan said. This is in the written record. Once that is accepted that is all I am worried about. As regards the document the person who got it, Mr. Cosgrave, can be asked if it is the same document and this will prove the point one way or the other. 12173. You appreciate I take it that what is in the written record can also be hearsay, Captain Kelly? —I appreciate that what was said in Dáil Éireann is accepted by the public of this country as being the truth. Deputy FitzGerald.—We are all delighted to hear you say that. 12174. Mr. Hickey.—I refuse to be sidetracked, Captain Kelly. I want to ask you why this document was not put to Chief Superintendent Fleming on the 3rd November by your counsel? —That is the last day here. He forgot it. 12175. He forgot it? —I forgot it. I left it at home. I changed my clothes. 12176. Do you expect the Committee to believe that? —This is a fact and I do not think you should suggest otherwise. 12177. You appreciate I take it that you have suggested throughout that Chief Superintendent Fleming’s evidence is perjury? I have put in my submission here. I have stated quite categorically, because I know it and I am not talking from heresay, that all of Chief Superintendent Fleming’s evidence is false. 12178. That all of it is false? —I might pick out one bit that might not be, but most of it is false, just to be precise. 12179. Let me pick out a bit and we will ask you whether it is false or not. Chief Superintendent Fleming has alleged that you met Cathal Goulding on a number of occasions. True or false? —Would you please quote what Chief Superintendent Fleming has alleged? 12180. Certainly. —I have quoted what he has alleged here concerning me and it is a lie. 12181. Chairman.—Perhaps you could give the reference for the Committee. 12182. Mr. Hickey.—Perhaps if I gave Captain Kelly’s own answer at 6776: I have never met Cathal Goulding in Virginia. The only time I met him was in Dublin. There is a further reference at 6818 and another reference at 6814 to the fact that Captain Kelly met Cathal Goulding on three occasions in all. Is that correct, Captain Kelly? —Three is correct, yes. 12183. Three is correct, and I think the only difference between your own evidence and that of the Chief Superintendent is that you denied that you had met Cathal Goulding in Virginia, County Cavan, whereas the Chief Superintendent said you had? —Chief Superintendent Fleming stated here that I met Cathal Goulding in Virginia, County Cavan, and I am very glad you brought up the point because I was fully authorised to meet Cathal Goulding anywhere I liked inside the State, authorised by the Director of Intelligence who had gone and spoken to Chief Superintendent Fleming concerning the matter. I was authorised, as an Intelligence Officer, to meet Cathal Goulding anywhere I liked, but the only reason why I deny meeting him in Virginia is because it is not true. I met him in other places and it is just part of this hearsay evidence, which is false, that is put forward by Chief Superintendent Fleming. 12184. You knew, I take it, that Mr. Cathal Goulding was the Chief of Staff of the IRA? —I was working in Intelligence. 12185. I take it that means yes? —Of course. 12186. I want then to refer you to your answer to question 5215—I use your own words: “I never had any associations with the IRA”? —Read the rest of it. 12187. That is all I am going to read, Captain Kelly? —Well, produce the rest of it. 12188. Chairman.—What is the reference? Mr. Hickey.—5215, Mr. Chairman. Witness.—Mr. Chairman, in my submission here I mentioned the evidence in question and I remember it quite distinctly. I could not find it in my book here when I was in my hurry to prepare for you, but I think Deputy FitzGerald was the person who asked me about the IRA and I will quote from memory—it may not be exactly correct. What I said was that any contacts I had with the IRA I had them with the authorisation of the Director of Intelligence and I did not see any necessity to name the people I met in the IRA but that the Director of Intelligence could do so as he wished and that I met no IRA as such, were the words I used, and that is it. 12189. But perhaps I might tell you what you did say, Captain Kelly, in fact: “There is one point I want to bring out, that is about the IRA associations. I never had any associations with the IRA? —Correct. 12190. “I was working for the Government here or the people concerned in Northern Ireland and I object very strongly to this being brought in because all it can cause is some type of smear and I object to this also very strongly because it has no reference to me or to the case.”? —How does that defame Chief Superintendent Fleming? 12191. Will you agree with me that you said you had no associations with the IRA in answer to that question? —I told this Committee that any contact I had was authorised and that the person who authorised me could inform the Committee of the names of those people and I suggest to you now that you dig this out before you start asking any more questions. 12192. Surely, Captain Kelly, you appreciate that these two answers are completely contradictory? —The evidence is before the Committee. Please dig it out. 12193. I am suggesting to you that if, on the one hand, you say you have no associations——? —You are splitting hairs. 12194. Will you kindly let me ask the question? —I will not allow you ask that type of question because you are just playing to the gallery. 12195. Mr. Chairman, am I entitled to ask the question? Chairman.—Yes, you are entitled. Witness.—Keep to the truth, will you? 12196. Mr. Hickey.—I suggest to you, Captain Kelly, that if, on the one hand, you say: “I never had any associations with the IRA” and, on the other hand, you admit having met their Chief of Staff on three occasions, these two answers are contradictory? —I did not admit meeting the Chief of Staff on two or three occasions. 12197. You admitted meeting Cathal Goulding on two or three occasions? —This was when I was putting my submission in answer to the lies perpetrated here by Chief Superintendent Fleming. 12198. But this was no lie. Chief Superintendent Fleming said you had met Cathal Goulding. You admitted that you had. Is not that right? —I never denied it. 12199. Then why did you say——? —Listen to me now. You are trying to put forward before this Committee, by the very nature of your question, a lie. Get back to the evidence and produce it. 12200. Why did you say then “I never had any association with the IRA? —Because I had not. I met one member of the IRA under authority and this was explained fully to this Committee. 12201. So meeting Cathal Goulding was not an association with the IRA in your definition? —If you do not understand what I am saying I am not going to bother explaining any further. 12202. Perhaps I am not as quick on the uptake as you are, Captain Kelly? —You are splitting hairs. You are trying to defend a false case. 12203. Did you ever promise to give any money to Cathal Goulding? —This was a lie perpetrated here by Chief Superintendent Fleming that I gave money to Cathal Goulding, that I promised him money or that I gave him anything. 12204. You could answer that question by saying “no”, you know? —No. 12205. Why then was it necessary to meet him on three occasions? —I was working as Army Intelligence, and I suggest that you refer to Chief Superintendent Fleming’s superior officer, the one to whom he reported—to which he did not admit here—and he might know, because he was the liaison officer between the security forces in the Garda and the security forces in the Army—military Intelligence. It was mentioned to him that these meetings were taking place, fully authorised by the authorities, and I have no reason to answer that question, no necessity. I met him and that is it. 12206. In my submission, Chairman, the question is a valid one? Witness.—How does it defame Chief Superintendent Fleming? Will you answer me that? —I will not answer you anything, Captain Kelly. 12207. Chairman.—You are not to ask questions at this stage. You had your day. Witness.—I would like to know. Actually, Mr. Chairman, I object to this whole line of questioning. It has nothing to do with the case before the Committee at all, as a matter of fact, only going down side avenues that have nothing to do with it and twisting evidence that is available. I would like, as a matter of fact, to pick out that bit of evidence to which I referred in my submission concerning contacts with the IRA. 12208. Chairman.—I beg your pardon? —I would like to dig out that bit of evidence to which I referred in my submission, if it were possible, concerning contacts with the IRA. It might clarify the matter for counsel. 12209. Mr. Hickey.—Captain Kelly, I am suggesting to you that a short way of dealing with this is for you to say why it was necessary to meet Cathal Goulding on three occasions? —That is none of your business. It has nothing got to do with how Chief Superintendent Fleming was defamed, and I put it to you that I did not defame Chief Superintendent Fleming. Will you come to the point? 12210. I will tell you what the point is. Chief Superintendent Fleming stated in evidence that you had given money to Cathal Goulding and you have denied that? —He is a liar. 12211. I want to ask you why it was necessary to meet him on three occasions close together if you were not going to give him money? —I have no necessity to answer these questions. I could not give him money and Chief Superintendent Fleming gave false evidence here. 12212. Do you want to run into a corner and give no explanation? —I am in no corner. Chief Superintendent Fleming came in here and made the allegations. He has not substantiated them in any way. He came in here the last day and said they were all hearsay. I have explained in my submission—I attempt to be charitable to the Chief Superintendent—how he could make a mistake possibly by being used, and I think a lot of the people who read the papers at the time know well that is what happened. 12213. Chairman.—Captain Kelly, may I ask you at this stage, if you feel that you wish to be charitable to Chief Superintendent Fleming, to refrain from using the word “liar”? Witness.—Well, it is very difficult, Mr. Chairman, I do not mind telling you. 12214. You agree or disagree, yes or no, but please refrain from——? —How do I explain when it is put before me here a statement by counsel that Chief Superintendent Fleming said I gave money to Cathal Goulding. I know in my heart and soul it is a lie because it never happened. 12215. Just say it never happened and that is enough. “It is untrue”, that is enough. 12216. Mr. Hickey.—Will you tell us for the last time why it was necessary to meet him on three occasions——? —That has nothing got to do with it. Ask Colonel Hefferon. Ask someone else. It was reported. 12217. What were you talking to him about, about the weather? —I suppose we did say it was a good day. We met him on normal intelligence duties and discussed them with him. 12218. Discussing what with him? —What was taking place at the time. There is a serious situation in Northern Ireland and I am quite sure you are aware of it. 12219. Do you remember the Chief Superintendent giving evidence about a meeting you had at an hotel in Monaghan with some members of the IRA? —Correct. 12220. The reference is 5725? —Yes. 12221. And I think, if I may summarize your answer, you said, in fact, that you were only up in the hotel by coincidence meeting somebody from the North when you observed that this meeting was going on. How did this coincidence happen to occur, Captain Kelly? —My God, it would take a better man than me to answer that. It happens every day. 12222. You happened to be in this particular hotel on the——? —I did not happen. I was there. 12223. You were there? —Meeting a man there. 12224. Very good. On the particular day that this meeting was taking place? —Exactly. It was on a Saturday, as far as I remember. 12225. And you told the Committee already, I think, that you knew what it was from the look of it? —I saw fellows there and I inquired. 12226. And you also inquired if you could get in? —That is right. 12227. And I think you said that naturally the answer was “No”? —That is right. 12228. If naturally the answer was “No” why did you bother inquiring if you could get in? —I was working in Intelligence. I was concerned with what was happening in the Six Counties and, I think this is obvious—I do not want to go into it in too great a detail—that, if I could get any information on what was taking place there, it was my duty to do so. But the point is this, that the meeting in Monaghan, I did not attend it and that, when Chief Superintendent Fleming says otherwise—what do you call it? A mis-truth or untruth or whatever it is. 12229. Well, anyway the fact is, Captain Kelly, whether you like it or not, that on three occasions you met Cathal Goulding and discussed matters with him that you will not disclose to this Committee. Is that not right? —No. 12230. Is that not the fact? —The facts of the matter are that I discussed what was my normal intelligence work with them. This was reported. Chief Superintendent Fleming’s superiors knew all about it and there was no question at any time. This is the point at issue, Chief Superintendent Fleming said I gave money to Cathal Goulding—this is—what is the word again? 12231. Chairman.—An untruth. —An untruth. 12232. Mr. Hickey.—Would it be usual, Captain Kelly, for an Intelligence officer to have to see the same person on three occasions close together to elicit information from him? —I could imagine you could see a fellow 20 times. 12233. But surely somebody in your advantageous position should be able to deal with the matter in a concise way without the necessity for three meetings? —That depends on what one is talking about and one’s capabilities, I suppose. I might not be very bright and I would forget what I asked. 12234. I am sure the Committee accepts that you are very bright, Captain, and could have dealt with this at one meeting? —That is immaterial as a matter of fact, anyway. 12235. You see, the suggestion I am making is that the second and third meeting may have been necessary for the handing over of money? —Ask me something? Has this anything got to do—Chief Superintendent Fleming made a very specific suggestion. What did he say? That I handed over money. When? Will you read it there, please? 12236. I will not answer your questions, Captain Kelly. —That is my point. 12237. You had your opportunity when you briefed counsel last week although you did not seem to avail yourself of it. —I have the facts today. 12238. I just want to put to you shortly a number of things that Chief Superintendent Fleming said. —If they are related to this defamation, if you get to the point, I will answer them. Otherwise, I will answer no more questions —give up. 12239. Did you ever promise Cathal Goulding to give him £50,000? —No. 12240. The first instalment to be paid within three days? —You are using Chief Superintendent Fleming’s lies here to put questions to me and you are supposed to be cross-examining me on defamation. 12241. I am using his evidence——? —Get to the point. 12242. Captain Kelly—— —Get to the defamation question. When did I defame him? Otherwise I answer no more questions to you—finish. Mr. Chairman, I finish answering questions unless he gets to the point of what he wants and what the whole thing is about. 12243. In that case, Mr. Chairman, I will finish asking questions. —That is fine. 12244. Deputy FitzGerald.—As I understood it—I may have got it all wrong— Captain Kelly is suggesting that Chief Superintendent Fleming’s evidence is untrue and that he perjured himself, and Chief Superintendent Fleming’s counsel is endeavouring to show that this statement, which, if made outside this room, would be defamatory, is or is not true. The line of questioning seems to me to be directly related to the question of the truth or falsehood of Superintendent Fleming’s evidence and I feel the cross-examination should proceed. 12245. Deputy Tunney.—So do I. 12246. Deputy FitzGerald.—It could not be more relevant, in fact. 12247. Chairman.—Yes, I agree. Captain Kelly, you could answer the questions. I am sure you could answer the questions. You could say “Yes” or “No” quite simply. —Witness.—No. This man is putting questions in a certain way. What he is doing is putting questions to me on the basis that what Chief Superintendent Fleming said is true. All I have said is that Chief Superintendent Fleming’s evidence was false and actually I am here—excuse me now for a moment, please—I called Chief Superintendent Fleming for cross-examination on the basis of the Supreme Court ruling that Chief Superintendent Fleming had defamed me by his evidence before this Committee. This is where the cross-examination took place. 12248. Chairman.—Yes. —Witness.—On the last day here and when Chief Superintendent Fleming requested that he have an opportunity to cross-examine me I said I did not mind. 12249. Chairman.—Yes. —Witness.—And if he cross-examines me on evidence which I gave to this Committee which is defamatory of Chief Superintendent Fleming I will certainly answer it, but the point I want to make is this, that prior to Chief Superintendent Fleming coming in here and starting off his mass of lies— where is it? Book No. 11—excuse me for a moment—I want to get this right. At 5628 he starts off: “In about the last week of September, 1969, Captain Kelly met Cathal Goulding, Chief of Staff of the IRA, in Virginia, County Cavan” and he goes on from there and it is just a mass of lies. 12250. Chairman.—Listen. —Witness.—And all I have done is say that he told lies. 12251. Chairman.—Well, look—can you not let—— —Witness.—He defamed me first. 12252. Chairman.—Captain Kelly, can you just answer to Mr. Hickey his questions “Yes” or “No?” —Witness.—No. They are loaded questions. 12253. —Chairman.—I can assure you—— —Witness.—He started off to ask questions about what is not related, at issue at all. 12254. Deputy FitzGerald.—My recollection is that Captain Kelly was asked the last day would he be examined by Chief Superintendent Fleming’s counsel and he said: “Certainly, I would have no objection to it”. It seems to me that Captain Kelly, if he refuses to answer questions on his allegations of perjury, directly relevant to that, is going back on what he said the last day, which was said with a view to his being able to cross-examine Chief Superintendent Fleming. I think this is a very peculiar procedure. I would suggest that he should answer the questions. —Witness.—Mr. Chairman, I suggest that Deputy FitzGerald read all that is written there once again. 12255. Dr. FitzGerald.—I have read it and, I am reading it. —I said I would have no objection to it, but I just wonder on what grounds Chief Superintendent Fleming would want to cross-examine me. There is a point. Further it does not matter. I am here to answer relevant questions. 12256. Deputy Tunney.—I just want to make one submission to Captain Kelly. He was here last week—— —Witness.—Who? 12257. Deputy Tunney.—You were present last week? —Yes. 12258. When your counsel cross-examined Chief Superintendent Fleming? —Yes. 12259. Now, in so far as you would be playing your attitude towards the Committee as against Chief Superintendent Fleming’s—— —Yes. 12260. I would ask you to remember the manner in which Chief Superintendent Fleming answered. If there were questions that he was not happy about answering he said so. If there were other questions put to him that required “Yes” or “No”, he said “Yes” or “No”. —Witness.—Mr. Chairman, this is over-simplifying the case. The fact of the matter is that I have accused Chief Superintendent Fleming of being a liar and bearing false evidence here and I can substantiate his evidence. He was asked to substantiate it the last day and he could not substantiate it, one iota of it, and I have given a submission to the Committee which shows and, if it is investigated, will show that, in effect he told a downright lie under oath to this Committee concerning Boland vis-à-vis Gibbons. Furthermore, on the question of meeting Cathal Goulding he told another downright lie to this Committee. Those are the points at issue. 12261. Deputy FitzGerald.—What is at issue, I suggest, Mr. Chairman, is whether or not Chief Superintendent Fleming perjured himself. Cross-examination is designed to elicit whether Captain Kelly is or is not correct in saying that. All the questions are directed towards this. They are totally relevant to that and could we now proceed with the cross-examination? 12262. Chairman.—Captain Kelly, I do not know why you are making difficulties at this stage. The problem is really very simple for you. —Witness.—Well, I will tell you, Mr. Chairman, very simply. I probably am slightly aggrieved. 12263. Chairman.—You are getting emotional. You are getting too emotional over—— —Probably, probably, but I am aggrieved, and Chief Superintendent Fleming introduced his lies here in private session. He then came out and produced them in public, exactly the same. 12264. Well, you are not the only aggrieved person. You have also stated here that Superintendent Fleming has perjured himself. I mean—— —I have no hesitation in saying he bore false evidence and every word of it is false and the point is this—— 12265. You should not make an accusation like that. If you cannot prove it you should withdraw it. —He gave hearsay evidence. I am giving the direct evidence. Now I am giving the direct evidence in the sense that I am the person accused of meeting Cathal Goulding. 12266. Chairman.—You shouldn’t make an accusation like that. If you cannot prove it you should withdraw it. —He gave hearsay evidence. I am giving direct evidence. 12267. Deputy Dowling.—You gave hearsay evidence. Witness.—No, I am giving direct evidence in the sense that I am the person accused of meeting Cathal Goulding. I know I didn’t. So, I am giving direct evidence. He was giving hearsay evidence. 12268. Deputy Nolan.—Could we continue, Chairman? 12269. Chairman.—Yes. If, Captain Kelly, you are bothered about a question tell me and I will do my best to help you. —It is not that I am bothered; it is the tone of the whole thing. 12270. Deputy Nolan.—Let Mr. Hickey continue. 12271. Mr. Hickey.—I do not propose to ask Captain Kelly any further questions because certainly I am satisfied that no cooperation will be forthcoming from him. I should just like to deal shortly with one or two matters that arose in the course of this whole business because I feel that Captain Kelly has taken an unfair advantage of Chief Superintendent Fleming in reading out this eight page document at the start of the hearing today when no such opportunity was given to Chief Superintendent Fleming on the last occasion. Further, I would like to point out that Chief Superintendent Fleming when he consented to be crossexamined before the Committee underwent a rigorous cross-examination. He was extremely co-operative. He answered every question that he could and to say the least of it a quid pro quo was expected from Captain Kelly. His performance here today in my opinion has been a sad disappointment and I would suggest that one of the most vital pieces of information that he had, this so-called document, should have been produced to Chief Superintendent Fleming on the last occasion and Captain Kelly’s explanation that he left it at home in another suit is so ludicrous that one need say no more. Accordingly, I propose to cease this cross-examination and to leave the matter stand. 12272. Deputy FitzGerald.—Before that terminates may I put this point? I think Captain Kelly ought to realise that, in assessing the relative merits of his evidence and Superintendent Fleming’s evidence, all of us have to bear in mind whether questions are answered straight or whether avoided. I think that before we finally conclude the cross-examination he should be given a final opportunity to clear his own position as far as possible by answering questions in the normal way and I think that if he is agreeable to do so and in his own interest personally he ought to, that we should ask Mr. Hickey to proceed with the normal cross-examination and normal answers, if Captain Kelly is willing to proceed that way. If not, we shall, each of us, have to draw our own conclusions. But I think in fairness to Captain Kelly he should be given one final chance in that regard and it would be unfair of Mr. Hickey to abandon the cross-examination at this stage if Captain Kelly is willing to proceed in a normal way. Captain Kelly.—That is very fine, and it is very fine what Mr. Hickey said, except that last day when Mr. Fleming was answering questions—and this is what one is up against—he did not tell the truth to this Committee as I have pointed out in my submission and this can be verified and very easily verified by calling in Chief Superintendent Malone, as he was then, now Deputy Commissioner. And this is what my submission was all about. 12273. Deputy FitzGerald.—We will make up our minds when we have heard the answer or non-answers. It is for us to decide. I have tried to give Captain Kelly a final chance and I suggest you ask him, Mr. Chairman, will he answer questions in a straight-forward manner or not? 12274. Chairman.—Captain Kelly, is there any hope that you will keep your cool? —I will, but there is one other point I want to make before we go any further. This Mr.—this counsel here states—— 12275. Chairman.—Don’t make a speech. You are only—you are not helping yourself. —No,—who makes a derogatory reference about this note—what does he know about it? The fact of the matter is that I left it at home. This is the type of thing I object to, insinuations like this that have nothing got to do with evidence. They should be withdrawn. How does he know about it? 12276. Chairman.—If Mr. Hickey asks you further questions will you—— —Well, if he stops making these insinuations that are nothing got to do with what is before the Committee. 12277. Chairman.—Every question put by a lawyer possibly has an insinuation: You cannot escape that. —This suggestion—— 12278. Deputy FitzGerald.—This suggestion that his client had not committed perjury, is an insinuation I am afraid, that Captain Kelly may not be telling the truth. Cross-examination would be impossible in any court if that principle were allowed. —Captain Kelly.—I beg your pardon. 12279. Deputy Dowling.—Cut out the codology and get on with this business. Don’t be wasting our time. 12280. Chairman.—Mr. Hickey, do you want to put any further questions? 12281. Mr. Hickey.—Mr. Chairman I have the greatest respect for this Committee but I feel that in view of Captain Kelly’s answers to the points raised by Deputy FitzGerald it would be quite futile to continue this cross-examination. It is all too obvious—— 12282. Deputy Nolan.—Have another try. 12283. Mr. Hickey.—No, Deputy, I won’t have another try. 12284. Deputy Dowling.—Mr. Chairman—— 12285. Deputy MacSharry.—Is Chief Superintendent Fleming happy that he has got the opportunity from—hold it for a minute now, Deputy. Through the Chair, is Chief Superintendent Fleming happy that the Committee have given him what he asked for? 12286. Mr. Hickey.—He certainly is. 12287. Deputy MacSharry.—Then, as long as Superintendent Fleming has no grievance with the Committee and the course of events here this evening, we should accept your ruling on it that you are not going to pursue your questioning. 12288. Mr. Hickey.—Thank you, Deputy. I propose to waste no further time. 12289. Deputy Nolan.—I think that is for us all now. Chairman.—Thank you very much. Session closed. The Committee adjourned. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
