asked the Minister for Justice if he will make a statement regarding the circumstances surrounding the release of a person (details supplied) who had been charged with rape in the Dublin District Court in July 1986 and who has subsequently been convicted of murder and rape in the Central Criminal Court in London last week and in particular (i) the reason the book of evidence was not prepared in time for the hearing before the District Court, (ii) whether the full facts surrounding the release of this person were disclosed to the complainant and (iii) the reason a Garda investigation into the conduct of this case is only commencing now.
Ceisteanna — Questions. Oral Answers. - Release of Prisoner.
36.
On the afternoon of 30 May 1986 a complaint relating to an alleged rape was made to the Garda Síochána who immediately commenced an investigation. Later that same evening the person referred to in the question was arrested. Following contact between the Garda and an officer of the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions, the person referred to was charged with rape before a Special Court held at Harcourt Terrace Garda Station. He was remanded in custody to be brought before the Dublin District Court on 31 May 1986.
The accused appeared before the Dublin District Court on 31 May 1986, on 12 June 1986 — when further charges including one of aggravated burglary were preferred against him — and again on 30 June 1986. On each occasion he was remanded in custody with consent to bail, but the accused was unable to find a suitable surety. On his 30 June 1986 appearance in court the accused was remanded, with his consent, to the District Court on 28 July 1986.
At the hearing on 28 July 1986 the court was informed that the book of evidence was not ready as the Garda investigation file had not been completed. The solicitor for the accused asked to have the case against his client struck out, on the basis that his client had been two months in custody and the book of evidence was not yet available. The District Justice struck out the charges and the accused went free.
At that stage the Garda took steps to complete their investigation file with a view to having proceedings against the accused re-instituted. The accused, however, left the jurisdiction. He was arrested in London on 9 August 1986 and charged with very serious offences, including rape and murder; a plea of guilty to manslaughter and rape was accepted by the London Court and he has been sentenced to life imprisonment.
It is clear that the failure to produce the book of evidence within a reasonable time resulted in the striking out of the charges against the accused in this case. While I share the widespread public concern about this matter, I must stress that I, as Minister for Justice, have no function in relation to the preparation of books of evidence, or, indeed, in relation to any aspect of the investigation or prosecution of offences. These matters are the responsibility of the Garda Síochána and the law officers.
The circumstances in which delay in completion of the Garda investigation file occurred and was responsible for the failure to produce the book of evidence are under investigation by the Garda authorities. This investigation has been going on for some time. Following an initial investigation which commenced in September 1986, a formal investigation under the Garda Discipline Regulations commenced in December 1986 and arising from that the Garda authorities have decided that a sworn inquiry is to be held into alleged specific breaches of discipline related to the investigation of this crime. This inquiry is due to commence, I am informed, in the middle of next month. The discipline regulations prescribe a formal set of procedures for matters of this kind and the conduct of these procedures is a matter for the Garda authorities. The commissioner is also considering the way in which all Garda officers who were concerned in this case discharged their responsibilities in relation to it.
As regards the information supplied to the complainant in this case, the Garda authorities inform me that, in response to her inquiry, she was told by the Garda that the accused had been released by the courts here and was in custody outside the jurisdiction in relation to other charges. The complainant asked to be informed of the outcome of the court case which was then pending and information on this matter was given to her by the Garda on 8 June 1987.
The information that I have on these matters has been acquired from reports which have been made to me by the Garda authorities.
First, I thank the Minister for his full reply although there are some aspects of my question with which he has not dealt adequately. I am sure the Minister will agree that this is an appalling case and is far more serious than perhaps some of the cases we discussed recently in this House. What steps did the Director of Public Prosecutions take to ensure that the book of evidence was prepared? Secondly, was the forensic scientist involved in this case a State employee?
With regard to the first part of the question, I do not think I have authority to speak on behalf of the Director of Public Prosecutions in this case — no Minister for Justice has. In regard to the second part of the Deputy's question, the forensic scientist is an employee of the Department of Justice. May I also say to the Deputy that there are certain aspects of this case with which I, too, am not personally satisfied?
Why did the gardaí not re-arrest the said person? Secondly, does the Minister agree that two months is more than adequate time in which to prepare the book of evidence?
Certainly. The first part of the Deputy's question is to ask why the gardaí were not able to effect rearrest. I gather that they were not able to because the person in question had absconded. They could not find the person they wanted where they were looking for him. What is the second part of the Deputy's question, please?
Why was it only on 8 June of this year the the complainant was informed of the facts? What aspects of this case is the Minister not happy with? As a final supplementary question, may I ask if the Minister agrees that this person, George Ireland, did not receive adequate treatment?
I would prefer if the Deputy would not name names.
It is obvious to everybody who it is. It appears that this person did not receive adequate treatment when he was in custody in this country. What efforts were made by the Garda authorities here to contact the authorities in Britain in relation to this person when he absconded?
I understand that the person in question was given a sentence of ten years which expired on 17 April 1986. During the course of his imprisonment this person was seen by a psychiatrist on 26 occasions, the last occasion being 20 March 1986. I also understand that he was seen on a regular basis by a psychologist, welfare officers, chaplains and medical officers.
Why was he let out?
Please, Deputy. We cannot keep him in forever. We can keep people in only for the length of the time the court decides on.
What about the Central Mental Hospital?
If I did keep them in longer than they were sent for, the Deputy would have something else to say. Would the Deputy please wait for the reply? His case was discussed extensively at liaison meetings which involved all disciplines — psychiatry, social work, chaplaincy, prison staff, etc. He was regarded by all agencies as dangerous and was not considered suitable for any form of early release and he was not given any form of early release.
Towards the end of his sentence he was allowed seven outings accompanied by either welfare or prison staff. These outings commenced on 20 December 1985 and the last one took place on 8 April 1986. On discharge, arrangements were made for the person in question to be set up as a fisherman in his own home town so that he would have income and occupation on his release.
During the course of his imprisonment the offender was punished for misbehaviour on five occasions. On each occasion the punishment imposed consisted of loss of recreation periods and warnings about future behaviour, as all the incidents were of a minor nature. I should like the Deputy to understand that I am advised there is no cure for somebody with a personality disorder. The only hope that can be expressed——
Why was he not committed to the Central Mental Hospital? It is outrageous.
Order, please, Deputy. Let us hear the Minister out.
——as was, indeed, said at his trial, is that a process of maturation over the years might affect some improvement. It is often the case that no change occurs or that, indeed, some deterioration occurs. I am advised that no apparent change one way or the other occurred in this man's case.
I want to ask a supplementary question.
It will have to be a very brief supplementary because we have gone beyond the time.
From what the Minister has said I find it quite appalling that this person was let out——
That is not a question.
——to attack other women and no effort was made to commit this person in the first instance and secondly he was given a full remission——
The Deputy is making a statement rather than asking a question.
In reply to the Deputy —and I heard her talking about this on a radio programme recently — it is a pity that she cannot understand that the person in question——
The Minister should tell that to the families of the people involved.
We could all say that. I cannot accept that if a person is allowed out having completed in full the statutory sentence handed down to him——
He completed seven years out of ten.
If the Deputy wants information she should let me try to give it to her; if she does not, I will not. The person served his full sentence and was free to go so far as the prison authorities were concerned. Of course we all deeply regret what happened.
Did he serve ten years?
I regret more than anybody that when that person was allowed to go free in the court that the Garda, when they could not find him, did not inform the police in England so that they could be on the look out for him. Of course, I regret certain aspects of this case as everybody in the House does. We all have as much feeling about the second victim, the Canadian girl he strangled, as Deputy Harney has.
Deputies
Hear, hear.
He did not serve ten years.
That disposes of questions, ordinary and priority for today.
On a point of order, the matter that was the subject matter of the last question that was dealt with is one of considerable public concern and it was dealt with correctly in the House.
Is it a point of order the Deputy is raising?
It is a point of order and perhaps you would let me finish.
The Chair is aware of that and need not be lectured about it. What is the point of order?
The point of order is that I sought to raise this specific matter in the House by way of a Private Notice Question on Tuesday and the matter was ruled out of order, not because it was not urgent——
Is the Deputy challenging a ruling of mine?
——but because it could not have been properly answered by the Minister.
The Deputy will now resume his seat.
I would like an explanation as to why it was proper for the Minister to answer questions today and improper for him to answer those questions last week.
The Deputy will now resume his seat. The Deputy will now leave the House.
Why could——
Will the Deputy force me to eject him from the House by way of evoking the Standing Orders. I am afraid I shall have to ask the Deputy to be named.
I leave the House under protest.
Deputy Shatter withdrew from the Chamber.
Deputy Barry Desmond.
I wish to raise——
Non-participants in the democratic process. He will hear you when the electorate give you more seats.
(Interruptions.)
They gave us a lot more this time than you thought they would give us.
The poor Labour Party. Do not victimise them because of us.
Will the Deputies desist from interrupting?
I should like to raise on the Adjournment the investment in the meat processing industry and the package that was announced earlier by the Government today.
I will communicate with Deputy Keating in respect of that matter.
I wish to raise on the Adjournment the extraordinary decision by the Midland Health Board not to comply with the regulations and guidelines issued by the Minister for Health in relation to the introduction by that board of the £10 charge for applications for hospital services cards, the £10 charge in relation to appeals against decisions relating to medical cards, the SWA and DPMA allowances and the £5 charge in relation to refunds of drugs over £28.
I will communicate with Deputy Desmond in respect of that matter.