asked the Minister for Justice if any internal inquiry was made by the Garda authorities into the detention by the Garda and the subsequent death of a person (details supplied).
5.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Detention and Death of Boy.
4.
asked the Minister for Justice if any disciplinary action was taken in respect of the findings of an internal inquiry by the Garda into the death of a person (details supplied).
6.
asked the Minister for Justice if any member of the Garda retired, or was compelled to retire, as a result of the recent detention and death of a person (details supplied) after being held in custody by the Garda.
With the permission of the Ceann Comhairle I propose to take Questions Nos. 4, 5 and 6 together.
At the outset I want to make it quite clear that there is no question of any Garda inquiry, internal or otherwise, being held into the death of this boy. That matter has already been the subject of a sworn public inquiry, in the form of a Coroner's inquest, before a jury. The verdict returned by the jury, in accordance with the medical evidence, was that the boy died from meningitis.
In answering an earlier question about the matter on 21 November last, I said in reply to supplementaries that the medical advice tendered at the inquest was to the effect that the dead boy was in a poor nutritional state at the time of his death. The State Pathologist did in fact give evidence to that effect. I was not aware at the time that a second pathologist, who also carried out a postmortem examination, did not agree with the State Pathologist's view about the boy's nutritional state. However, the findings of the two pathologists differed only in that one respect. They were in agreement that the cause of death was meningitis.
As I said in reply to a supplementary question on 21 November last, allegations of ill-treatment of the boy while in Garda custody were made by his mother. A Garda investigation into the criminal aspects of these allegations was carried out and, on completion of that investigation, the full facts of the case were, as a matter of course, reported to the Director of Public Prosecutions, who was satisfied that no prosecution was warranted against any member of the force who dealt with this boy and his companion while they were in Garda custody.
In addition to the investigation into the criminal aspects of the allegations, the Commissioner directed that an investigation into the question of possible breaches of díscipline by the members involved be carried out under the Garda Síochána (Discipline) Regulations, 1971.
Apart from the fact that this investigation is not completed, I must make it clear that these are statutory regulations and that proceedings under them are formal in character but are not public. Accordingly, such proceedings could not properly in any particular case be the subject of public comment by me as Minister for Justice. Where a complaint has been made against members of the force and results in an investigation being carried out, the Garda authorities may inform the complainant of the outcome of any disciplinary proceedings—that is, whether the complaint was upheld or not—but the findings are not otherwise made public.
No member of the force has retired or been compelled to retire as a result of the case mentioned in the questions.
The Minister gives the impression that he wishes to be taken as a reforming Minister. In the circumstances of charges of this kind which were made in respect of the boy—the boy did die—and there were charges of wrongful detention, and in the absence of——
The Deputy is entering into argument.
Would the Minister not agree that the Garda, the Department of Justice or the Minister should introduce a system whereby an inquiry of this kind would be carried out in such a way that the public would know that it was effectively a judicial inquiry, in so far as both sides of the case would be put by the people competent to do so? Would he not agree that any exculpation of the Garda in that situation would be to their benefit rather that this seemingly star-chamber type of investigation in which the proceedings of the inquiry are carried on secretly behind closed doors, an old practice with which we are all familiar. Would the Minister not believe that, in the interests of justice and of the good name of the Garda, it would be better if inquiries of this nature were made public?
I mentioned in the course of my reply to the Deputy that there was an investigation and that the papers in the case were sent to the Director of Public Prosecutions, who was satisfied that no prosecution was warranted. It was the Director of Public Prosecutions who made that decision.
I further mentioned in my reply to the Deputy that the Commissioner of the Garda Síochána directed an investigation to take place into breaches of discipline by members involved and that this is being carried out under the statutes which provide therefor. I am very satisfied that the inquiry at present being carried out will be a proper one. I cannot accept the allegation made by Deputy Browne that it is a star-chamber type of inquiry. That is a wrong thing to say. I believe it truly to be a very wrong thing to say. I am satisfied that the inquiry being directed by the Commissioner of the Garda Síochána is an inquiry that will give us the true picture as it is. I am satisfied that this is the proper way it should be carried out.
Might I say to the Deputy that I have as much interest in the good name of the Garda Síochána as he would have or anybody else for that matter?
Is it not a fact that at a coroner's inquest—this is the public inquiry to which the Minister referred—the inquiry is concerned simply with the cause of death; it is not a tribunal of inquiry in the true sense. That is the first point. Secondly, is it not a fact that we have accepted, in order to establish justice in any difference of opinion between citizens in our society, a very complex system of open courts in order to be satisfied that justice is being seen to be done? Why, in the case of the Garda, an extremely important sector of our society, is this principle not being established?
(Cavan-Monaghan): Arising out of the Minister's statement that a sworn inquiry in the form of a coroner's inquest was held, would the Minister not agree that a coroner's inquest is a limited inquiry to ascertain the cause of death and nothing more, and that in fact the coroner's jury is precluded by statute from apportioning blame or exonerating anybody?
I refer the Deputy to part of my original reply. Perhaps because of the length of the reply the Deputy might not have heard it properly or clearly. I said that the matter in question has already been the subject of a sworn public inquiry in the form of a coroner's inquest before a jury. The verdict returned by the jury in accordance with the medical evidence was that the boy died from meningitis. I deliberately said that because there was a doubt about what the boy died from. Therefore I thought it was necessary, in the course of my reply to Deputy Browne to make it clear that that is accepted.
(Cavan-Monaghan): I want to make it clear that I am not going into the merits or demerits of this matter because I am not in a position to do so but will the Minister agree with me that a coroner's inquest could not be regarded as a satisfactory sworn inquiry into a matter of this sort?
Into what particular aspect of the matter?
(Cavan-Monaghan): Into blame or exoneration—if there is anybody to be blamed or to be exonerated.
I think the Deputy has again missed part of what I have said in the reply. I never implied that that was so.
(Cavan-Monaghan): That is all I wanted to establish.
The Minister has given us an undertaking that there is to be a preliminary inquiry.
It is in progress.
Will I have to put another question down to find out or will the Minister convey the findings of the inquiry to us when they are available? Also there are a number of disturbing factors in relation to the child who died from meningitis; it could have been meningitis following brutal treatment while in custody. There was a charge that the child was wrongfully held but, most important of all, would the Minister in this year of the child do something to see that minors are not taken into custody by the Gardaí and questioned without some adult, either a parent or someone who would act in loco parentis, in order to see that they are not frightened or, bluntly, brutalised as has been suggested takes place on some occasions? I have heard indeed of children of ten and 12 years of age having their fingerprints taken. Will the Minister, in the circumstances, now devise a system of judges' rules in order to protect children in custody?
First of all, I said on 21 November last and again today that an internal inquiry is taking place. There are reasons why the internal inquiry is taking place and when the findings of that inquiry are available I will be in a position to take whatever action is necessary. I assure the Deputy that he will not have to put down a further parliamentary question. As soon as I have information from the inquiry I will communicate with the Deputy on it.
Is the Minister satisfied that when the boy was taken into custody he was not suffering from the effects which led to his death? While I accept that nothing malicious was done to the boy and that this was a very grave tragedy, will the Minister take steps to ensure that in future when any boy is taken into custody a similar thing will not happen?
There is no question whatsoever that the meningitis from which the boy died was contracted while he was in Garda custody or as a result of being in such custody. The State Pathologist informed the Garda authorities in writing at the time that in his view it was virtually certain that the boy caught his infection while he was at liberty and not while he was in Garda custody.
That is the very point and I do not want to labour it, but if the boy had been at home or somewhere else might he not have been taken to a doctor or to a hospital instead of being held in custody?
I do not want to go into details because this case is at present being inquired into but in reply to the Deputy I feel I should say that this young boy had been living rough away from home for approximately five months.
Is this not all the more reason why medical attention should have been sought.
That is argument.
That is a very important point. Will the Minister give me some assurance that, in cases where a boy is living rough and not under the supervision of his parents, the authorities will seek medical attention for him. May I have a reply to that question?
This matter is under investigation at present. I do not want to say anything more about it for the reasons I have already given. The inquiry has started. I do not expect it will take too long.
Will it be a matter of months or weeks?
I would hope it will not be months.
Will the Minister give the House an assurance that in cases similar to this medical attention will be called immediately.
That is a separate question.
It is a very important issue.
I accept that but it is a separate question.