Web Analytics
Constabulary Inquiry Reveals Charges of Negligence Against Sergeant Foy in Newcastle West |

Constabulary Inquiry Reveals Charges of Negligence Against Sergeant Foy in Newcastle West

A special Constabulary Court of Inquiry was convened at Newcastle West Police Barrack to address serious allegations brought against Sergeant Hugh Foy from Ardagh, Co. Limerick. The charges centered around accusations of lack of diligence in reporting outrages and neglect of duty. Mr P. Beirne, D.I., led the prosecution, while Mr James Lavin, a solicitor, represented Sergeant Foy during the proceedings.

The charges that formed the focus of the inquiry were as follows:

  1. Neglect of duty for failing to report an outrage at Mountpluer in his sub-district, involving the throwing down of 45 cut coping stones from the wall at James Cussen’s residence on the night of May 18th or the morning of May 19th, 1905.
  2. Willful concealment of the said outrage. On May 19th, 1905, when Sergeant Foy was speaking to his officer at Mountplumer, within close proximity to the scene, inquiring about other outrages, he allegedly failed to inform him about the incident, despite being fully aware of the facts at the time.
  3. Neglect of duty for not reporting several outrages in the neighborhood to the sergeant at Glenduff Station, which was located about three-quarters of a mile from Mountplumer. The failure to report hindered the possibility of promptly tracing the offender who, as later transpired, committed serious outrages in the Glenduff sub-district.
  4. Lack of energy and efficiency in dealing with multiple outrages that occurred in his sub-district on the night of May 18th or the morning of May 19th, 1905. This resulted in a lack of information about the identity of the offender.
  5. Improper absence from his post in the disturbed sub-district of Broadford on May 24th, 1905, without obtaining leave from his officer. During this time, several outrages had recently taken place in the locality, making his presence necessary for proper handling of the situation.
  6. Incorrectly informing the barrack orderly about his whereabouts on May 24th, 1905, during his eight-hour absence from Broadford station.

County-Inspector Hayes presented evidence during the inquiry. Sergeant Foy was questioned about his failure to report the outrage at Mountpluer, and he allegedly suggested that the incident was not significant enough to warrant a report. According to his own inquiries, however, Inspector Hayes believed the matter should have been reported as it was serious in nature.

James Cussen, the owner of the residence where the outrage occurred, gave his testimony, claiming he did not report the incident to the police as he considered it a practical joke and deemed it insignificant. He believed the damage could be easily repaired with a bag of cement.

Mr Cruise, D.I., testified that Sergeant Foy informed him that he was unable to obtain information about the offences. However, Mr Beirne, D.I., and another witness successfully acquired the required information without any difficulty.

Mr Beirne, D.I., added that Sergeant Foy had no right to take leave without permission, particularly considering the recent outrages that occurred within his district.

The Constabulary Inquiry has brought to light serious allegations against Sergeant Foy, and the public eagerly awaits the outcome of the proceedings. The case underscores the importance of upholding diligence and responsibility among law enforcement officials in maintaining public safety and order.

Constabulary Gazette (Dublin) – Saturday 24 June 1905

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Notify of
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments