asked the Minister for Defence if he will make a statement explaining the circumstances surrounding an incident in which an Army sentry is reported to have fired twice at a post office van at Gormanston Army Camp on the night of 10th April 1972.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Gormanston Cross Road Incident.
105.
Certain incidents in the area of Gormanston cross roads about 600 yards from the military camp between 11 p.m. and midnight on 7th April, 1972, gave rise to a suspicion that the telephone lines might have been interfered with and the Garda, to whom the matter was reported by the camp authorities, notified the Department of Posts and Telegraphs with a view to their having a check carried out on the lines.
When an official of the Department of Posts and Telegraphs telephoned the camp requesting information in the matter he was informed by a military officer that the telephone lines within the camp were working satisfactorily but that there was some reason to suspect that the telephone lines on the main Dublin to Belfast Road had been tampered with. The official indicated that he would send someone out immediately. It would appear that while the official intended that he would send someone to Gormanston Camp, the army officer understood that he would send someone to inspect the telephone lines on the main road. Accordingly, the officer did not expect that an official of the Department of Posts and Telegraphs would come to the camp and did not advise the main gate to expect such an official.
At 12.15 a.m. the military policeman at the main gate handed over duties to the camp orderly sergeant. At about 1.45 a.m. a van approached the gate. The driver got out of the van, leaving its engine running and lights on, and went towards the gate. The man indicated that he was from the Department of Posts and Telegraphs and that he had come to check a line. The camp orderly sergeant told him to switch off. The driver switched off the engine of the van but not the lights. The camp orderly sergeant asked him to identify himself. The man did not produce any identity card but asked to see the orderly officer at the camp. This request was refused.
The camp orderly sergeant became extremely suspicious because—
(1) He knew the repairmen of the Department of Posts and Telegraphs who normally visited the camp and the driver of the van was a stranger to him;
(2) He knew that there was no fault on the telephone lines in the camp since only a short time earlier he had been in touch by telephone with a Dublin Barracks; and
(3) The driver of the van had produced no identification.
At this time the driver was, in accordance with normal practice, covered by the weapons of the guard. Words were, apparently, exchanged between the camp orderly sergeant and the driver and at one stage the sergeant, being apprehensive of the driver's intentions, threatened to fire. The driver entered the van quickly, saying that he would report that he had not been admitted to the camp, and made a few rapid locks to turn the van. The orderly sergeant fired at its left rear wheel. The van was struck but the driver succeeded in driving it away.
The occurrence was immediately reported to the Garda Síochána at Drogheda and Balbriggan and the Garda later reported that the driver of the van was, in fact, an official of the Department of Posts and Telegraphs.
In order to appreciate the circumstances of the incident it should be borne in mind that the linesman sent to examine the equipment did not know the precise location of the equipment which it was reported was being interfered with. Since the report about interference had originated at Gormanston Camp he called there to establish the exact location. The linesman knew that the technician in the exchange who had asked him to go to Gormanston had been in contact with Gormanston Camp and had said that somebody would be going out to attend to the matter, so he thought the sentries would know he was coming. In the event, the sentries had been changed in the interval since the exchange technician had been in contact with the camp, and the sentries on duty were unaware of the earlier reports that had been made.
The Post Office responded promptly to the request, received late at night, that a technician should be sent to examine the lines. I am very conscious of the good relations which exist between the military authorities and officials of the Department of Posts and Telegraphs. I regret that through unfortunate misunderstandings this incident should have occurred.
It will be appreciated that, in present circumstances, military guards, sentries and security parties are, and must continue to be, very much on the alert. The Army and Post Office authorities are reviewing jointly the procedures at present in operation for dealing with such calls to avoid any repetition of incidents of the kind that occurred last week.
May I ask the Minister was it not possible to make an arrest in this case? I am not criticising anybody but was it not possible to make an arrest rather than having to fire at the van with the consequent danger that must arise?
From the information I have outlined in this statement it appears that words were exchanged between the parties and thereupon the driver sat in, proceeded to lock and turn the van and then moved off.
Question No. 106.
I am afraid I have not got the reply to Question No. 106.
Perhaps we could continue with the next question and No. 106 can be taken later.