asked the Minister for Justice if he has considered the circumstances surrounding the death of Mr. Liam O'Mahoney in the Garda Bridewell in Cork; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Cork Bridewell Death.
2.
When this tragic death first came to my notice, my immediate response—and the response of the Garda Commissioner—was that the fullest inquiries should be made and that all relevant facts should be made available to the next-of-kin and presented at the inquest. Accordingly, it is unnecessary for me to stress that I accept without question that, if a person dies while in Garda custody, the public interest requires that there should be the most thorough investigation of the facts and that the facts should be fully ventilated. It is, however, equally in the public interest that what is ventilated should be the truth, as far as the truth can be ascertained from the facts available.
In the normal course, where an inquest has been held, there could be no question of my making any comment on the matters at issue. A jury's verdict speaks for itself. I regret to say, however, that, in connection with this unfortunate tragedy, not only had the Garda Síochána been made the victims of all sorts of rumours before the inquest—this, perhaps, was understandable—but, since the inquest, attempts have been made to undermine public confidence in the Garda investigations and in the jury's verdict. In these circumstances, it is necessary for me to correct the misrepresentations that have been resorted to so that the significance of the jury's verdict may not become obscured.
It has publicly been alleged that the jury did not deal at all with the question of how the deceased man received his injuries—that they said nothing about it. That is incorrect. It is on public record that the jury explicitly adverted to this and said that the available evidence was insufficient to show how he received the injuries.
It has been alleged that the Garda withheld information from the next-of-kin. This, too, is incorrect. Every scrap of information collected by the Garda Síochána, including a copy of every one of more than 60 statements taken by the Garda, was given to the solicitor for the next-of-kin six days before the opening of the inquest.
An attempt has been made to undermine public confidence in the jury by suggesting that they were hand-picked by the police. The fact is of course that none of the Gardaí whose conduct might in any possible way come under scrutiny had anything to do with the empanelling of the jury. In accordance with standard practice, it was the Garda who approached members of the public to serve on the jury but, because of the rumours that had been going about, senior officers of the Force in Cork took particular care to see that those approached would be people whose character, reputation and general standing were such that not even the most prejudiced observer could have any bona fide doubt about either their independence or their competence.
Yet these jurors, identifiable people who freely gave their time and their talents to this duty, who live and work in the same city as the deceased man, now find their integrity publicly impugned by people who, I venture to say, can know nothing about them. This reflection on the integrity of the jury must seem all the more unfortunate when we realise that the group responsible were themselves legally represented at the inquest and that their legal representative went out of his way to tell the jury that he knew that they would exercise their functions as jurors fairly and fearlessly.
Another suggestion that has been made is that the State Solicitor was not impartial. It is no part of my duty as Minister for Justice to defend or explain the manner in which the State Solicitor acted. I simply record, as a fact, that it was not the State Solicitor but the Coroner who conducted the inquest. The State Solicitor was present to represent the Garda just as another solicitor was present to represent the next-of-kin.
I now come to the heart of the matter, which is this. As I have already said, every scrap of evidence that the Garda Síochána could get was first of all handed over to the solicitor for the next-of-kin and given again at the inquest. Here I would like to give a personal assurance. All the documents— the statements, the Garda reports and the medical evidence—have been re-examined in detail by me and I am satisfied, beyond all shadow of doubt, that every fact which the Garda were able to unearth in the course of exhaustive inquiries was made available for the jury to consider. Moreover, every witness who could contribute any material information attended and gave evidence on oath and was open to cross-examination. The Garda witnesses, in particular, were subjected to severe cross-examination. Nobody suggested them, and nobody has since suggested, that there is any other relevant evidence that can be obtained. The Coroner, whose impartiality is not open to question, stated in his summing-up that there was no evidence at all of ill-treatment by the Gardaí. And the jury, after deliberating for about an hour, unanimously decided that they had insufficient evidence to show how the deceased received his injuries.
In the course of this inquest, the finger was pointed especially at particular, identifiable members of the Garda Síochána and the jury were asked to bring in a verdict to the effect that the deceased received his fatal injuries while under their care and, by inference, at their hands. The jury declined to do this. By doing so, the jury let it be known that they had no evidence that would justify such a finding. Because of the situation in which these particular members of the Force have found themselves, through no fault of theirs but arising from their duties, I am glad to have this opportunity to say publicly that, as far as the Garda authorities are concerned, it is not just a question of there being no evidence— in the minds of their superior officers there is not even a shadow of suspicion against them. On that point, I think it is also right, in the particular circumstances, to place on record that I have spoken personally not only to the Commissioner but to the Chief Superintendent, Cork city, who has an intimate knowledge of all the members concerned, and that every one of them has an exemplary record of service.
In saying all this, I do not lose sight of the fact that the central question— how the deceased man received the fatal injuries—remains unanswered. This is an unfortunate fact, but it cannot be solved by ill-considered calls for an independent sworn inquiry. The Coroner's inquest was, in itself, an independent sworn inquiry and no attempts to undermine its findings can be allowed to obscure the fact that it was not, in practice at all events, in any way limited in its investigations. There can be no getting away from the fact that there is no source of evidence available to any further tribunal that might be established that has not already been available to the Coroner's inquest. Naturally, if some new evidence were to come to light that would be likely to provide the answer, a new situation would be created but, as matters stand, there is nothing more that can usefully be done.
There is one other point that I would like to mention. It is undoubtedly a fact that the deceased man asked for a doctor and that his request was not acceded to by the members concerned, who thought that his condition was due to over-indulgence in drink. In the light of what subsequently transpired, I have arranged with the Commissioner that a provision should now be added to the Garda code to the effect that if a person who is being detained in Garda custody alleges that he needs a doctor, either because he has been injured or is ill, the Garda will take steps to secure the services of a doctor for him unless it is beyond doubt that the request is frivolous; and likewise they will call in a doctor if a person being detained in custody is in an unconscious or semi-conscious condition, unless from their previous knowledge of the person or from the circumstances they are quite sure that his condition is due simply to overindulgence in drink and that he is not in any danger.
I should like, in conclusion, to offer my sympathy to the family of the deceased man.
Mr. Barrett
Will the Minister tell the House what record of the inquest proceedings he had access to?
I had the very full newspaper reports which appeared in the Cork Examiner and the three Dublin daily newspapers which covered the inquest very extensively on each day of the hearing and, in addition to that, I had all the documents, statements and reports on which the evidence at the inquest was based. I have examined these documents in very minute detail since the inquest and I find that there is no fact that is in any way material in those documents that was not subsequently given in evidence at the inquest and reported in the daily press.
Mr. Barrett
Will the Minister tell the House why he did not have a stenographer present at the inquest so that he would have had access to a complete verbatim report of everything that transpired? Will he agree that that would have been the sensible thing to do instead of relying on newspaper reports which were necessarily truncated?
The newspaper reports were certainly not materially truncated. I do not think that any useful purpose is served by arguing this. I have examined the reports and I am aware that there is not one fact of any material value excluded from these reports. They contain every material fact, as I know from my own examination of all the documentation in the case.
Mr. Barrett
I am not talking about the Minister's examination of the reports. I am asking him why he did not have available at the inquest for his own information and that of the House a shorthand record of every word that transpired at the inquest. Would the Minister not agree that this would be the sensible thing because it would help to clarify matters and dispel existing doubts in the minds of the people of Cork?
Having regard to the very thorough nature of the reporting of the inquest and subsequent examination of the files, I think this is very much a side issue.
Mr. Barrett
How can the Minister say that there was a thorough report of the inquest at which he was not present? The inquest went on all day and there were seven or eight columns in the papers, so it could not have been a complete report.
I want to ask the Minister this question. Sharing his belief, as I do, that the Garda are blameless in this matter, does he not think that it is in the public interest, as there is no verbatim report of the Coroner's proceedings on record anywhere and in view of the fact that there was a similar though by no means identical incident in another part of the country 12 months ago, there should now be a sworn public inquiry into the whole matter, with a verbatim report, in order to reassure not only the people of Cork but all over Ireland that the reputation of the Garda is untarnished? Does he not think that there should be such a sworn inquiry into the whole matter so that the vindication of the Garda can be effective and so that, if any further material transpired, the persons responsible, if anyone was responsible for this man's death, would be brought to justice?
My immediate response to this and the Commissioner's response on hearing about this was to allay public suspicion by announcing, as we in fact did, a very thorough and exhaustive investigation and in furnishing the result of that investigation fully and openly to the solicitor acting for the deceased's next-of-kin. This took place. There was a very full and exhaustive hearing at the inquest at which newspaper reporters were present representing several newspapers. There is very considerable documentation of the whole matter which I have examined since the inquest. If, as a result of all that, I could see the slightest prospect that any further material fact might emerge, I might accord with what Deputy Dillon has suggested but I am satisfied from the assessment of all that I have indicated that any further inquiry would merely be a duplication of the very exhaustive sworn inquiry which has already taken place in the form of the inquest.
May I ask the Minister this question? Deeply as we all sympathise with the next-of-kin of the deceased man, in the context in which we are now speaking, whatever sympathy suggests, that cannot be the primary consideration. The primary consideration is that there should be established in the public mind the absolute confidence our people have traditionally had in the Garda Síochána and I want them vindicated before a sworn inquiry to which any interested citizen can come and offer any little of evidence that he alleges he has. The time has come to stop rumour and, if there is anybody who knows the back streets of this city or of Cork and if there is anybody who knows something or thinks he knows something, set up a tribunal and tell him to come there and tell under privilege what he knows and that it will be examined and investigated. Because, it is not the next-of-kin—who are probably satisfied with the coroner's court —it is the people who are anxious to see the reputation of the Garda Síochána vindicated. I am certain that it will be but I want it done in public and I want the rumour-mongers brought into public and made to repeat their rumours openly where they can be cross-examined. If you do not do that, I warn you that the rumour-mongers will have a field day. I do not want them to have it.
Would the Minister not agree that the effort and the place where he tried to have this investigation have proved abortive, that a coroner's inquest was not the place for this type of inquiry and that, because of the limitations under the Coroners Act, everybody is dissatisfied with the nature of the investigation? Is it not time, in fairness to everybody involved, that the Minister appointed somebody responsible to hold a public inquiry at which evidence can be presented, cross-examination take place and the investigation put on the normal basis, not on this kind of "blow hot, blow cold" limitations under the Coroners Act where the jury are very limited in what their investigation can be? The nature of the investigation wanted now is a cold, searching investigation that will find the facts as they really are. As suggested by Deputy Dillon, if the situation is that the Gardaí are blameless in the matter—and that is a view that we should hope would ultimately emerge—the time has come for us to try to arrive at that happy result and to stop the seething mass of rumour, counter-rumour and suggestion going on in the city of Cork and its environs as a result of this abortive inquest.
And in the city of Dublin and elsewhere.
(Cavan): On the question of procedure, am I right in thinking that the Minister has at his disposal a verbatim account of the State case as presented to the coroner's court in the form of verbatim statements taken by the Garda and submitted to the Minister but that in so far as anything that was elicited by those representing the next-of-kin the Minister has relied on a press report which is necessarily sketchy and very much abbreviated and does the Minister not think that it would have been no more than prudent for him to have had there a stenographer who would have taken a verbatim note? Further, has the Minister adverted to the fact that the State Solicitor who represented the authorities there seems, as far as one can gather from the press reports, to have behaved in a rather flippant manner and to have alleged that the solicitor appearing for the next-of-kin was electioneering rather than conducting the cross-examination of the State witnesses in the best interests of his clients? In all the circumstances, and while agreeing with Deputy Dillon that there is probably no blame to be attached to anybody, would the Minister not think that he should have a full-scale inquiry? Finally, am I correct in thinking that the jurors for a coroner's inquest are not selected at random as they are for other court trials——
Selected by the police themselves.
(Cavan):——but that the Gardaí go around and invite seven persons to come and sit at an inquest?
Mr. Barrett
I wonder if the Minister would agree, having regard to the fact that a man was taken into a Garda station in a good state of health and died there of serious injuries, that that is ground for public disquiet which can be dissipated only by the type of inquiry that is being advocated from this side of the House?
He was not taken in in a good state of health.
Mr. Barrett
He was.
(Interruptions.)
I would expect members of the Fine Gael Party to approach this matter in a more impartial manner.
Be careful.
There is no point in blowing hot and cold. I want to look at this matter in a judicial way and from the outset of this matter I have sought to do so.
Mr. Barrett
Is the Minister suggesting that we do not?
Over 60 statements, and the whole of the results of the Garda investigation, were made available to the solicitor acting for the deceased's next-of-kin six days before the hearing. That in itself was a more valuable protection and greater assurance that truth would eventually emerge than any verbatim report of the actual hearing. Every single fact that could be elicited or that might be elicited in order to illuminate every aspect of the matter was available to the solicitor acting for the deceased's next-of-kin six days before the actual hearing. That in my own view is a major assurance that the public have had in this matter. In addition to that, you have a sworn inquiry, which in effect is what an inquest is, into the cause of death.
Limited to finding what the cause of death is.
This is exactly the matter that I am concerned with, from the point of view of reassuring the public—what was the cause of death— and the jury's finding is quite conclusive.
Eight ribs broken and a ruptured spleen.
In this respect the jury's verdict is quite conclusive— they had no evidence to show how he received the injuries.
There not being sufficient evidence, not that they have no evidence.
The Deputy is not dealing with this serious matter in a manner becoming a Deputy.
So serious is it that it is about time you did something about it, not talk poppycock.
Furthermore, in regard to the selection of the jurors, great care was taken by the senior officers in Cork city to ensure that jurors of impeccable standing, both from the point of view of competence and of integrity, were chosen——
That is illegal. They should be chosen at random.
——and any reflection impugns their integrity or competence. Finally, the point made by Deputy Barrett that the unfortunate deceased person was in a state of good health on arrival at the barracks is certainly at total variance with the facts. If the Deputy reads any of the newspaper reports to which I have referred, the facts quite clearly show that the unfortunate deceased was in anything but a good state of health long before his arrival at the station.
The jury found that the deceased man had eight ribs fractured——
Nine.
——and that his spleen was ruptured. That did not happen as a result of an impact with a drop of rain and the jury did not attempt to determine how these injuries were sustained.
Secondly, I want to ask the Minister, is it proper for the senior officers of the Garda in summoning a coroner's jury carefully to select seven men of deemed probity? I understood that the procedure under the Coroners Act was to invite seven men chosen by chance in order that there should be no possibility of the Garda officers choosing seven men whom they deem to be men of principle. The whole jury system rests on the chance that you get 12 average citizens in a jury case, seven in a coroner's jury case, average citizens, not seven men of chosen probity. For the protection of the Garda, I am asking the Minister if he will not have a sworn inquiry so that those who are promulgating rumour not only in Cork but in every city and town in Ireland will be challenged to go to the inquiry to speak their rumours there; and if they do not, then those of us to whom they repeat them can tell them to shut their mouths and can say: "Why the hell do you not go to the inquiry?" I shall help any rumour-monger to get to the inquiry.
I do not wish to interrupt, but can anything of value accrue from the pursuit of this matter any further in this place?
May I ask a question which I have not had the opportunity of asking? Would the Minister say—he has not made it clear, although he has been very informative in his lengthy statements—whether or not the Garda are continuing inquiries?
They are indeed.
Are they actively pursuing inquiries themselves?
They are at the moment. I want to avoid the situation where there would be a mere duplication of the sworn inquiry which took place at the inquest. There is not a scintilla of evidence available yet to me or to the Garda authorities which would indicate that another inquiry would not be other than a repetition of the coroner's inquiry. However, I want to assure the House that if any further fact emerges which would induce me in the slightest degree to have any doubt about any aspect of the evidence given at the inquest, I shall certainly see if an inquiry as suggested by Deputy Dillon would help.
Is it not obvious that what the Minister has said is contradictory? Does he not agree when he says there was a conclusive verdict it is contradictory of the fact? The verdict was that they had no evidence as to how death was sustained. That is an inconclusive verdict, and it is all the more reason why the inconclusive verdict of that inquiry should be changed into a positive one.
If I get any evidence other than what I have seen for myself and what emerged at the inquiry, I can certainly have the public inquiry suggested. But unless it emerges—and the investigations are continuing—I see no point at public expense, although that is a secondary factor, in duplicating the sworn inquiry which has been held at great length in recent weeks. However, as I say, if further facts emerge as a result of further investigation——
Together with the multiplication of rumour.
The Minister has stated this man was known to be in a bad state of health when he entered the barracks. If that was known, why was he refused the services of a doctor?
No. I say that it is now known that he was then in a poor state of health. I have had discussions with the Commissioner on that aspect, the question of the arrangements to get a doctor in such cases, and we are amending the Garda code to ensure that where a person requests a doctor in those circumstances a doctor will be sent for by the Garda concerned. I should like to bring some air of reality into this matter as far as the Gardaí are concerned. Every night in Dublin and Cork there are not just one or two but hundreds of people in a similar condition to this unfortunate man coming into Garda stations. The Gardaí take the human view that the people concerned are drunk. This human view was taken on this particular occasion by the Garda concerned, that the unfortunate man was merely drunk, and an error of judgment was made.
Let us prove it was a blameless mistake and prove it in public.
Even though it will take up considerably more time and energy on the part of the Garda, I have suggested to the Commissioner, and he has agreed, and it is being incorporated in the code that every time a doctor is asked for—unless it is clearly frivolously as it may be on some occasions—the Garda must send for a doctor in those circumstances.
I question the Minister's statement that hundreds of people are taken in drunk to Garda stations in Dublin and Cork every night.
They are.
Surely that is something that should not go on the records of the House?
May I repeat what I said a few minutes ago? I do not think anything of value can accrue from continuing this discussion. It is expanding. It is not being limited to what actually happened. May I ask Deputies to consider that nothing of value can emerge from this irregular argument?
Mr. Barrett
The Minister has stated in reply to my question that he wished that we on the Fine Gael side had taken a more impartial view of this matter. It would be of great value to the House if the Minister would withdraw the suggestion that we have been partial and if he would agree we are simply making the deep investigation which this matter calls for. I think the Minister should withdraw the suggestion that we are partial in our approach. I certainly am not. I am anxious that all rumour should be dissipated. It is unfair of the Minister and unworthy of his office that he should suggest we are being partial.
Particularly since I sent him a message a week ago that he ought to make a statement in the House.
I am excluding Deputy Dillon from that.
(Cavan): Is it not a fact that, under the Coroners Act, the Coroner's jury's duty is solely to determine the cause of death and that under the Act the jury is precluded from adding riders apportioning blame; that they must be so warned by the Coroner and are, in fact, at every inquest; that a jury are not at liberty to bring in riders saying who was at fault or who was not at fault? Is that so or is it not?
The jury's duty is to ascertain not only the cause of death but the circumstances of death— how, where and when. This is a case which had agitated me, agitated the public and every Deputy here. The jury had all the facts available before them. It was for them to decide if these facts enabled them to ascertain the cause of death. They found themselves unable to ascertain the circumstances of death; nor at the moment, through the Garda and all the other resources available, have we been able to obtain any further evidence which would enable any other jury or any other sworn inquiry or any other tribunal to come to any conclusion other than that arrived at by the Coroner's jury.