asked the Minister for Justice if he will hold a public inquiry into the circumstances of the death of a 15-year-old boy after his release from Rathfarnham Garda Station, Dublin, in July.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Boy's Death.
14.
The method prescribed by law for inquiring into such matters and informing the public of the outcome is the holding of a coroner's inquest which in fact is a sworn public inquiry. An inquest has already been held in the case in question and the jury, in accordance with the medical evidence, returned a verdict of death from meningitis.
Is it not a fact that there are limitations to coroners' courts and that a number of facts associated with this case were not investigated? Why was it that these two boys, Owen Redmond and Aidan White, were kept in custody for 48 hours before being charged? Why was it that the mother was not informed? Would it not be appropriate that a parent should be available when a child or youngster like this is being questioned? Surely this is something that should be inquired into by the Minister.
I am assured that it was wide open to the inquest to consider all these matters. There was no question of anybody being prevented from bringing anything out at the inquest.
Perhaps the Minister knows why it was that the Supreme Court ruling on this question of bringing somebody before a court or a peace commissioner after being charged was not observed in relation to these two youngsters. Does the Minister know why that was done? Why was it that this child died from meningitis and that this diagnosis was only made post mortem? Why was it not diagnosed in the Garda barracks or in the assessment unit to which he was sent?
I cannot discuss with the Deputy the causes of meningitis. I am not competent to do so or to discuss how one notices that a person is suffering from meningitis. If any matters such as those the Deputy is raising here today are causing concern to any people, it was quite open to them to raise these matters at the inquest.
Surely the Minister in charge of this Department would realise that these are prima facie matters, the fact that the boy was not charged——
This is merely argument.
I am asking the Minister would he not consider it his responsibility to know why the Garda did not obey the law in respect of charging the child, why they did not bring in the parent, why they held a child suffering from meningitis without medical care and attention? This appears to be death under very suspicious circumstances in custody for which the Minister is directly responsible.
I want to make it very clear that I am not to be taken as expressing the view that in the matter of the procedures they followed in this case the Garda were above reproach. I believe that in some respects their handling of the matter may have been open to criticism. This must in no way obscure the central fact that the death of this unfortunate boy cannot be laid at the door of the Garda Síochána. Specific allegations of ill-treatment of the dead boy while he was in Garda custody were made by his mother and similar allegations were also made by another boy, a colleague of the deceased. This other boy has since pleaded guilty in court on a number of charges and neither he nor his legal representative made allegations to the court of ill-treatment while in custody. Although there was no medical evidence to support the allegations against the Garda the papers were referred by them to the Director of Public Prosecutions who was satisfied that no prosecution was warranted against any member of the Garda who dealt with the boys while they were in custody.
Because of the attempts which have been made to misrepresent the situation in a newspaper article it is well that we should be clear about the fact that the medical advice tendered at the coroner's inquest was to the effect that the dead boy was in a poor nutritional state which almost certainly increased his susceptibility to infection with meningitis and that, accordingly, malnutrition was a contributory cause of death. Attempts have been made by at least one journalist to confuse the public on this issue by implying that the medical evidence was referring to a complaint that the dead boy did not receive adequate food while he was in Garda custody. In fact, evidence was given that the boy had been away from home for some weeks prior to his arrest, that he had been "living rough" and that he had not had proper food. He was in Garda custody for less than 48 hours.
The Minister has not answered any of my questions about the prima facie breach of the law by the Garda in respect of this child's liberty and rights. Why was it that this child was kept on a respirator for six days after being brought to hospital and the only reported reason given by the doctor in charge was that there might be legal complications? It has been suggested that the child lost his bruises while being on the respirator and this helped to conceal the fact that the boys had been assaulted while in Garda custody. Finally, is this kind of charge, which may be wrongly accusing the Garda of things they did not do, the reason that the Ó Briain Commission was set up so that somebody would be there as a witness other than on the Garda side or on the children's side?
We are getting away from the original question.
Arising from the last part of Deputy Browne's supplementary, it is obvious that he is not accepting what I am telling him. He will readily appreciate that it is not possible to have an inquiry of the type he is talking about here on the floor of Leinster House over a parliamentary question. The method prescribed by law for inquiring into such matters and informing the public of the outcome of such an inquiry is the holding of a coroner's inquest, which was done in accordance with the law.
If it was so obvious to everybody that the child was suffering from such a severe degree of malnutrition why was he not transferred to medical care immediately on being arrested? Why did he remain in the hands of the Garda for 48 hours subsequently?
I have not said that it was obvious to everybody that this child was suffering from malnutrition.
In the light of the Minister's statement that some aspects of the conduct of the Garda might not have been above criticism, will he say which aspects of the conduct of the Garda he was referring to?
If the Minister, as he has stated, was dissatisfied with this or had some doubts about it, did he ask for a report?
In reply to Deputy Harte, I did.
Has the Minister got a full report?
I have not got a full report yet.
This is ex parte evidence.
Would the Minister indicate in reply to my supplementary what aspects of the conduct of the Garda does he regard as perhaps being not above criticism?
Allegations were made on which I asked the Garda authorities to check and to let me have a full report with regard to police procedures. The part which has already been checked out quite definitely and clearly, as I have said, was whether the police were in breach of the law. As I told the House, the papers were submitted to the Director of Public Prosecutions whose job it is to make a decision on such matters as to whether there will be a prosecution. He decided that there would not be.
When the Minister has the final report will he make all the information available to the House?
If the Deputy wants further information on it and on the subject, when I have the final report to hand he will then want to table another parliamentary question and I will give as much information as I can.
In view of all the widespread publicity, sometimes very adverse as far as the Garda were concerned, would he not in the interest of the whole matter have all the information made available to Deputies?
When I have the report, and only when I have the report, will I make a decision as to whether that should be published.
Question No. 15.
Will the Minister indicate what aspect of the procedure as opposed to breaches of the law he is dissatisfied with?
I am calling Question No. 15.