asked the Minister for Justice the measures which are being taken to prevent a recurrence of incorrect fingerprint identifications.
22.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Fingerprint Identifications.
21.
asked the Minister for Justice if he will confirm that there were incorrect fingerprint identifications made in four murder cases in the past eight years, including the case of the assassination of the British Ambassador.
With the permission of the Ceann Comhairle I propose to take Questions Nos. 21 and 22 together. I have already, in a reply of 9 February in the Official Report, Volume 303, columns 1051 to 1054, made a fairly detailed, even though only an interim, statement on this matter. The statement included the information that I had been assured that measures had already then been taken to strengthen safeguards against any possibility of a mistake being made in identification. The Garda authorities have, therefore, not waited until now to take those measures. The measures taken consist of additional checks or counter-checks both of fingermarks and, where evidence is being prepared for court, of photographic charts so as to involve in every case three experts working independently.
Incidentally, here and elsewhere, when I refer to fingermarks, I include palm-marks which may be what is involved in certain cases and to which the same principles apply. May I also explain that it is conventional to use the term "fingermark" to refer to what is found at the scene of the crime, for example, and that the term "fingerprints" is used to refer to the copies of fingerprints of known persons with which the marks found at the scene of the crime are compared.
As regards other aspects, there has been a development since my previous reply was given, namely, that the Director of Public Prosecutions has completed his examination of the allegations made to him and has decided that the institution of criminal proceedings is not warranted. This, therefore, clears the way for some further comments on my part.
I am asked in one of these Questions to confirm that there were incorrect fingerprint identifications in four murder cases in the past eight years, including the murder of the British Ambassador. In view of the fact that certain newspaper reports mentioned five cases, one of them being a case that is sub judice, I think it necessary to make it quite clear that nothing that I propose to say relates to that case, which, as far as this reply is concerned, has to be treated as if it never existed.
Certain distinctions have to be made between the other cases.
As regards the murder of the British Ambassador, the House will recall that my predecessor dealt with that matter in a reply of 16 March 1977. In dealing with that case now, I could simply repeat the facts given in that reply but it would be unrealistic to ignore the suggestion that has repeatedly been made that my predecessor's statement on that occasion was factually and provably wrong, the evidence adduced for that suggestion consisting in the main of certain quotations from a particular authoritative book on fingerprints. I do not need to analyse in detail either the quotations or the context in which they appear in the book in question for if material from a book is used as evidence for something that can be shown to be incorrect, it necessarily follows, either that the book is being misinterpreted or that it is wrong on the particular point.
It is not for me to suggest which of these alternative explanations is the correct one in relation to what is, by common consent, acknowledged to be an authoritative work. What matters in the present context is that I can confirm that the official record in my Department proves that, when the Department were informed by the Garda Síochána in October 1976 that a fingermark discovered near the scene of the crime had been linked with a particular person, the Department were at the same time informed by the Garda that the identification was subject to a reservation or qualification related to the need to get a better set of prints with which to compare the mark that had been found. In referring to the official record I am referring to a note that was made and acted on before any question arose of any other member of the Technical Bureau challenging the identification. May I stress that the record was not only made but that the information was acted on at the time, so the authenticity of the record, as a record made contemporaneously, cannot be questioned.
I am dealing here with what was conveyed to and recorded by my Department at the relevant time. As to how confident the Garda members concerned actually felt about the identification, despite the expressed need for better copies of prints and as to what was said in that regard at various internal Garda conferences that were subsequently held, there is conflicting evidence. The matter was of course conclusively resolved some time later, when, as my predecessor explained, it was discovered that the fingermark was that of another person, namely, a member of the Bureau.
In relation to three other murder cases where fingerprint identifications have been called in question, perhaps the first thing to be said is that nobody was convicted in any of them. In one of them nobody was charged but there is evidence that a conclusion was reached that a particular fingermark was that of a person who was then himself dead. Since the suspect was dead, the question of following up such a conclusion did not arise. In two other cases, evidence was given in court but the accused persons were acquitted.
In the case where the suspect had died, no effective independent check could be made when the identification was challenged, for by then the original fingermark had completely deteriorated and technical difficulties had prevented the taking of a satisfactory photograph of the print at the initial stage.
In the two other cases, a thorough series of checks has led to the conclusion that, while the identifications made may have been correct in the sense that the marks may in fact have been those of the persons to whom they were attributed, the photographic evidence available would not in fact justify identification. It scarcely needs to be said that the only acceptable test is not whether an identification made in court may be correct but whether it can be said with certainty that it is correct. In fairness to the two members of the bureau who were most directly concerned, and bearing in mind that they have gone through what must have been a period of considerable strain during which extremely serious allegations against them of criminal misconduct had been made and had to be investigated, I should say that they make the point that identifications are not made by them from photographs of marks but from the original marks which, especially in certain cases, are in a very real sense three-dimensional rather than two-dimensional. They point out that those originals were not inspected at the time by anybody who subsequently challenged the identifications and the originals could not be checked when the challenge was made because the marks had in the meantime deteriorated or become obliterated in the normal course. Moreover, supporting this, there is a school of thought amongst some fingerprint experts that in certain cases where, because of their location or otherwise, fingermarks cannot be photographed to the full satisfaction of the expert, the expert should not attempt to produce photographs in court at all but should rely on his oral testimony. Having put that on record, I regret to have to say that the conclusion remains that the rigid standards which ought to be maintained in all cases involving fingerprint evidence were not maintained in these cases and, even when allowance is made for the fact that the identification that was conveyed to my Department in relation to the murder of the British Ambassador was expressed to be subject to a qualification, the same has to be said about that case.
I have already said that steps have been taken to ensure that such an unfortunate situation cannot recur. This still leaves the question whether there is any risk that there may have been any other cases where anything less than fully satisfactory fingerprint evidence was given in court, and especially any such case where a person was convicted. As to that, I am glad to say that very full inquiries have been made and, whatever differences may have arisen between certain members of the bureau on other matters, all the experts in the bureau, including those who were involved in those differences and those who were not, are united in the view that there are no grounds for fearing that such a thing may have taken place. The Garda authorities are in fact fully satisfied that the only cases over which any question might arise are those which have already been identified.
What I have now said, coupled with what I said in my earlier statement, covers the main points relating to specific cases. There is one other, more general, point which it is, I believe, right to mention. That is that, quite apart from these disagreements about particular fingermarks, it is clear that for some years past there has been within the bureau a regrettable atmosphere of dissension and, perhaps, what amounted to personality clashes. It is not for me to come into the House to criticise the people involved and this is particularly so when, as I am sure all Deputies appreciate, we are speaking of disputes that arose before I assumed office. Indeed, in fairness I think I should say that, as in most cases where there is dissension, I have no doubt that it was not a situation in which all the blame could be laid at any particular door. What is important is not to pass judgement but to recognise that a continuation of the kind of atmosphere that had developed in the Technical Bureau could not be tolerated, for it at one and the same time damaged the capacity of the bureau to contribute effectively to the detection of crime and put at risk the standards that must at all times be observed in order to ensure that an innocent person is not convicted. The Commissioner has taken, and will continue to apply, effective measures to restore the situation to what it used to be before these developments and not only that but to achieve new and higher-than-ever standards. This overriding objective can be achieved without resort to futile recriminations over what is past and without unfairness to individuals though not necessarily without upset to the wishes of some of those involved. I am in no doubt that the Commissioner will continue to act both effectively and fairly in this task and that, in a very short time, the cloud that has hung over the bureau will have been permanently lifted.
That was longer than the moneylending answer.
May I have an assurance that the men who originally challenged this matter are not being victimised in any way?
I assure the House and the Deputy that there is no question of victimisation.
Is it true that they were transferred when they originally challenged it?
As I said in my main reply, I do not honestly think that taking that line will serve any useful purpose at this stage.
Would the Minister ensure that justice is done in the bureau and that the men who originally discovered the mistake are returned to their original positions?
Question Time is over, Deputy.