asked the Minister for Justice the disciplinary action, if any, taken following the internal Garda inquiry into the death of a young boy, following his release from Rathfarnham Garda station in July 1978.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Boy's Death.
1.
As I am concerned about some aspects of the manner in which a number of members of the Garda Síochána discharged their duties in relation to the detention of the boy in question, I think it is particularly important that I should first draw necessary distinctions between the different issues that have arisen.
I have already stated, in reply to the Deputy's questions on 8 March last (volume 312, col. 1136 of the Official Report), that there is no question of any Garda inquiry, internal or otherwise, being held into the death of this boy. The death was already inquired into, having been the subject of a sworn public inquiry in the form of a coroner's inquest, which is the method prescribed by law for such an inquiry. Accordingly, the reference in the present question to an "internal Garda inquiry into the death" is not correct. The question also refers to the boy's death as having taken place following his release from Rathfarnham Garda station. If that is meant to imply that the death was the result of his detention, I have to point out that there is no evidence of any kind that that is the position.
When the matter was last raised here, on 8 March last, the suggestion was made by one Deputy that a coroner's inquest is precluded from apportioning blame or exonerating anybody. That observation is correct as far as it goes, but it is incomplete for it is clear that the jury would be perfectly free, while not pointing the finger at any individual, to draw attention to any failures on the part of the Garda Síochána, collectively, that the evidence would show to have been a contributory factor. In this case, the question of their doing so could not arise because the medical evidence clearly established the cause of death as meningitis and it established also, not as a certainty but as a matter of high probability because of the incubation periods involved, that the virus must have been picked up before the boy was taken into custody. Even if the virus had been picked up while the boy was in Garda custody, it would be unreal to suggest that that would imply culpability on the part of the Garda.
A related issue is a suggestion that, if the gardaí had been more alert and had sought a medical examination, the boy's life might have been saved. It is impossible, in the nature of things, to refute completely speculation based on what "might have been" but I suggest that the reasonable way to look at it is to bear in mind that, after a court hearing, the boy was sent to the assessment centre in Finglas in the early afternoon of Monday, 10 July, and that the people responsible for receiving him there obviously did not from the opinion that he needed any medical attention at the time of his reception or throughout that evening or that night. It was not until the following day that he was attended by a doctor in the assessment centre and, even at that stage, meningitis was not diagnosed or, apparently, even suspected. In those circumstances it seems quite unreasonable to suggest the symptoms must have been apparent to the gardaí who were dealing with the boy at an earlier stage in the incubation period. The gardaí say that, while in their custody, the boy did not complain of any illness nor did they notice any symptoms other than a cough which the boy himself led them to believe was not a new development because, when they commented on it, he said it was due to smoking.
Another issue that was raised was that of allegations of beatings with a stick, and punchings, and so on. The suggestion was that the boys were beaten in order to force them to admit to crimes. Some allegations of this kind are said to have been made by the boy concerned to his mother, but the main allegations were made by another boy who was arrested and charged with him. This other boy was legally represented in court. The allegations were not repeated there and he pleaded guilty to the charges.
Putting the matter in its most unfavourable light from the Garda point of view, it can safely be said that these allegations have not been substantiated. In fact, this issue was submitted to the Director of Public Prosecutions because, of course, if there was evidence to prove the allegations, the members concerned would not only have been guilty of breaches of discipline but of criminal offences. The Director found that there was no evidence that would warrant criminal proceedings.
At this point I would also explain that I am deliberately refraining from commenting in any way on allegations by Deputy Browne that the boys were illegally detained. That is a legal question and it is not a matter for me to sit in judgment on legal issues. If any relevant point about illegal detention could be made, the place to make it was in court where all aspects of the matter could have been argued.
I now come to the only remaining issue, which is what the Garda inquiry to which I referred earlier was about, namely whether any member or members of the force were guilty of breaches of any internal Garda regulations that would warrant disciplinary proceedings. By "Garda regulations" I mean confidential internal instructions to the force, which are designed to ensure that the gardaí will act at one and the same time with efficiency and with due regard to the rights or reasonable needs of the detained person. I regret that the answer to that is that there were, in fact, several breaches of those regulations.
A number of members—13 in all—have been found to have been in one way or another, and for the most part in more ways than one, negligent in complying with approved procedures or in checking that those procedures were being observed by members under their control. As Minister for Justice, it is not my function, under the disciplinary regulations or otherwise, to pass judgment on the precise degree of culpability that arises in relation to individual disciplinary charges. That has been done internally, within the force itself, and it has never been the practice for Ministers for Justice either to seek to be involved in such decisions or to publicise what the particular decisions have been. I have, however, been given to understand that the failures in some of the cases were mainly formal rather than substantive and that in no case were they very serious failures considered individually and in the light of a number of mitigating circumstances. Nevertheless, the cumulative effect is, to say the least, disconcerting. I think it necessary to say publicly, here in this House, that it is a matter of very serious concern to me that a situation could have arisen in which 13 members of the force—of whom ten were above the basic rank of garda—have been found to have failed to act as they should have done, in connection with the detention and charging of these two boys. I have conveyed this concern of mine to the Garda authorities.
Finally, to complete this statement and for the record, I would refer to the undertaking which I gave to Deputy Browne, in the course of a reply to supplementary questions on 8 March, to communicate with him as soon as I had information about the disciplinary inquiry. I was not, in fact, in a position to communicate with the Deputy in the matter because the inquiry was completed only very recently, by which stage notice of the Deputy's current question had been received.
I should like to thank the Minister for his very comprehensive reply and for having taken so much trouble over what was obviously a case with a number of very disquieting features. I cannot deal with all of them now but I should like to ask one question that I hope might arise out of this boy's tragic death, namely, about the judge's rules of evidence to which he referred, the confidential rules about the interrogation of juveniles in Garda custody. In view of the fact that there was a delay between 8 and 10 July, between the time of taking the child into custody and calling the parent—I understand that was in breach of the confidential regulations of the Garda—what is the Minister's attitude to attempting to issue some rules of evidence, judge's rules or creating some rules, rules which are known to all of us publicity, about the whole question of the interrogation of juvenile suspects in custody, in particular in regard to the presence of the parent, the guardian or a solicitor before evidence taken can be admissible in court? I hope I have made myself clear. Would the Minister not feel that, arising out of this case, we should try to advance to the present British Home Office position in regard to which there is a Home Office circular about to issue?
In reply to the Deputy I should like to say that I have asked that senior officials of my Department would consult with the Garda authorities to see what can be done in the way of tightening up or improving existing regulations. These confidential regulations are issued by the Garda Commissioner to members of the force. I have asked that these be examined and, if they need to be up-dated or improved. I will be quite prepared to go along with that.
Could the Minister give any kind of undertaking that these rules—whatever rules or whatever circular is made available—should not be subject to confidentiality? I fail to see, and I suspect the public will fail to see, why the rules should not be made public. What is the reason for the maintenance of confidentiality in respect of them? Would it not be in the interests of the Garda that we all have access to these, particularly in relation to children who are so vulnerable, helpless and impotent in a situation of this kind? Would it not be wiser, particularly in this Year of the Child, to make even this small contribution to seeing that they are given every possibility of getting justice when in custody in our Garda stations?
The question raised by the Deputy in his last supplementary is one of the aspects which will be examined by senior officials of my Department in conjunction with the Garda authorities.
When should I ask again of the Minister? When would he be likely to have any further information?
I suggest to the Deputy that I, for my part, will communicate with him, but let that not stop the Deputy from putting the question down to me if he feels that he must and should.