asked the Minister for Justice the reason the two fingerprint experts involved in the British ambassador murder case, were guilty of not maintaining the rigid standards in cases of fingerprint identification, if, as documentation appears to show, the identification was inconclusive.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - British Ambassador Murder Case.
14.
The only documentation to which the Question could relate is certain Departmental documentation which I mentioned in previous replies and I did not suggest, as the question seems to imply, that that documentation "appears to show" that the identification made in relation to the murder of the British Ambassador was inconclusive. In fact, as may be seen from my reply of 23 May 1978, I explicitly drew attention to the fact that the documentation related to a particular time and that there was conflicting evidence as to what happened later. In other words, the documentation was identified as being evidence, important evidence in my view, but not proof either actual or apparent.
This of course does not alter the fact that the assessment made by the Garda authorities, taking account of all the evidence, was that those members who alleged that the identification had at some stage been held out as being conclusive had not substantiated their allegation. I assume, therefore, that the Deputy would wish the question to be interpreted as asking why, despite such an assessment, I said in my reply of 23 May 1978 that the rigid standards that ought to have been maintained were not maintained. There is no contradiction involved. Independent expert advice indicates that, on the material before them, the two members concerned were not justified in drawing even the qualified conclusion which they themselves admit that they drew and reported to their authorities.
I regret that in giving this reply I have had to repeat this critical reference to two identifiable members of the force who have had to go through a period of considerable strain because extremely serious allegations against them of criminal misconduct had to be investigated, an investigation which ended with a decision by the DPP that the institution of criminal proceedings was not warranted.
Is the Minister saying that he now considers the identification to have been conclusive, or is he saying it was inconclusive?
I have said that the assessment made by the Garda authorities, taking account of all the evidence, was that those members who alleged that the identification at some stage had been held out as being conclusive had not substantiated their allegations.