asked the Minister for Justice if he is aware of reports of irregularities in fingerprint identification of suspects at the Garda Technical Bureau; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
17.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Fingerprint Identification.
16.
asked the Minister for Justice is he aware of disagreement within the Garda Technical Bureau about a fingerprint involved in the investigation of the assassination of the British Ambassador in July, 1976; and, if so, the action he proposes to take in this matter.
18.
asked the Minister for Justice if he or the Government was informed of the identification of a suspect in connection with the assassination of the British Ambassador following fingerprint examination; if this identification was conveyed to the British authorities; if following further fingerprint assessment this identification was later withdrawn; and if the revised information was also conveyed to the British authorities.
19.
asked the Minister for Justice if he is aware of concern expressed by the President of the Incorporated Law Society at reports that fingerprint evidence was falsified in an attempt to secure convictions; and if he will consider holding an inquiry to allay such concern.
With the permission of the Ceann Comhairle, I propose to take Questions Nos. 16 to 19, inclusive, together.
Last October my Department received from the Garda Síochána information to the effect that a fingerprint discovered on a helmet that had been found near the scene of the murder of the British Ambassador and Miss Judith Cooke had been linked with a particular person. The Garda stated that the identification was not conclusive and needed to be further checked when better samples or copies of the fingerprints of the person concerned would become available.
It would be contrary to practice to say whether or not information to this effect was conveyed to the British authorities as any such communication would be confidential.
No more definite identification than that which I have indicated was at any time subsequently communicated to my Department and I understand that the better copies or samples of the fingerprints of the person concerned which were being awaited had not in fact been obtained before the issue was otherwise resolved by the discovery that the fingerprint on the helmet was a fingerprint of a member of the Technical Bureau.
I am informed that, before the fingerprint was identified as that of a member of the bureau, the view had already been expressed by two members of the bureau that the earlier, qualified, identification was not correct. A difference of opinion amongst fingerprint experts does not of itself appear to me to be significant, especially in relation to prints of poor quality, though obviously the position would be otherwise if an identification had been positively made and put forward as conclusive in court proceedings. In this case, however, the officer in charge had decided that the matter was to be left in abeyance until the better quality copies or samples to which I referred earlier were obtained. Before that happened, as I have said, the issue was otherwise resolved.
Nevertheless, there are various aspects of the matter that require to be fully gone into and evaluated and a comprehensive investigation is in train under the direction of a senior Garda officer. This investigation will cover, amongst other things, any possibility that there may be implications for other cases in which fingerprint evidence has in the past been given. I am informed that for various reasons, including some of a technical nature, the investigation is likely to take at least another month or so.
Will the result of the inquiry be conveyed to the Minister or to the Commissioner of the Garda Síochána? Does the Minister not think it advisable that the result of the inquiry be conveyed to himself?
The result will be communicated to the Commissioner and myself and any action that needs to be taken arising out of it will be taken.
Would the Minister not consider it in the public interest to allay any suspicion in the matter that the inquiry should not be an internal one but that an external person be appointed to it?
No, I consider that inquiry is properly a matter for the Garda and I have complete confidence in the competence and probity of the officer who will be carrying out the inquiry.
Can the Minister say, if in a month's time he has the report of the inquiry into this matter, if that report will be made public?
I cannot say. I have not taken any decision on that. However, as I imagine there will be security implications I would be inclined to think at the moment that it would not be made public, but I have no fixed opinion on it yet.
But the Minister has not ruled out making it public?
I have not ruled that out, but I would say this to the Deputy, that I would convey to the House any other steps that might be necessary in order to allay any public disquiet on the matter.
Can the Minister say why inconclusive evidence or evidence that was not confirmed arising from this fingerprint was conveyed to the Department in this instance?
It would be normal practice to keep me informed, particularly in a matter such as this, but as I have pointed out it was made clear that the indentification was not conclusive.
Surely the Minister would agree, if anybody is talking to him or his Department in a case such as this, the evidence would have to be properly checked out before it would be given to the Minister, as otherwise it must be regarded as hearsay?
That is not so. The investigation of crime involves the following of a number of lines of inquiry and it is only right and proper that I would be kept informed of the various stages of the lines of inquiry from time to time. One of these lines of inquiry may be following a fingerprint which would not be conclusive at an early stage. I think it is quite proper that I would be informed that a fingerprint has been identified and that I would also be informed as to the hardness, so to speak, of the identification.