Vol. 423 No. 6
9 Mr. R. Bruton asked the Minister for Justice whether the inquiry into the convictions of persons (details supplied) being conducted by the Attorney General's Office has yet been completed and a report made to Government; if so, the results of the inquiry; and the action, if any, the Government now propose to take.
63 Mr. Garland asked the Minister for Justice when the report on the Tallaght Two will be published; and his views on whether there has been an undue delay in the issuing of this report.
64 Mr. J. Higgins asked the Minister for Justice if, in view of the fact that it is now almost two years since the State instituted a top-level inquiry in the Tallaght Two case, he will outline when the aforementioned investigation will be completed; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
I propose to take Questions Nos. 9, 63 and 64 together. The House will be aware that in October 1990 the former Attorney General requested the Director of Public Prosecutions to prepare a report on the case referred to in the questions.
The Attorney General has completed his examination of the report of the Director of Public Prosecutions and other relevant documentation. He has also examined the formal petitions for pardon presented to the Government in this case on 11 June last. I am examining the Attorney General's findings as a matter of urgency with a view to bringing the matter to Government in the very near future.
Did the Minister say that he got the Attorney General's report on 11 June last?
I said that the form of petition came in on 11 June. I received on August 28 from the Attorney General the document the Deputy is referring to.
Would the Minister agree that this has been a matter of some concern and controversy for a considerable length of time and that the two individuals referred to in the question are entitled to know the Government's views on the matter and have their petitions dealt with expeditiously? Will the Minister indicate to the House, since he has received the Attorney General's report in August of this year, that the matter will be dealt with and brought to finality by way of Government decision before the end of this month?
The Attorney General's findings in the case were received by me on 28 August. The findings are rather detailed and extensive. They involve complex issues so it will take some time to examine them. I am happy to say, although I do not want to be pinned to it, that I will be able to bring the matter to Government within a month or so.
Irrespective of the completed investigation by the Attorney General and of how the matter is ultimately disposed of, does the Minister intend to make public the findings of the Attorney General given the way in which this case has occupied the public mind and has resulted from the public trial of the two accused? I join with the previous speaker in urging the Minister to conclude his deliberations on this matter as speedily as possible. This case has lingered much too long and it has engendered a lot of controversy because of the delays involved.
That is a reasonable request from both Deputy McCartan and Deputy Shatter. I would like to dispose of it as quickly as possible. I am prevented from commenting further until the Government have considered the matter and the petitions. The matter will be considered by Government and if I remember correctly, the Taoiseach has given some indication as to the possibility of publishing the report. If he has, that will be honoured.
I am deliberately not pressing the Minister to reveal what the Attorney General said to the Government. I accept that this is a matter for Government decision. I would ask the Minister to ensure that the report is published at the end of the day. During the course of the summer months it was announced that the Government would bring legislation into this House to provide for a reopening of cases where new evidence emerges and there was a suggestion that the report of the Attorney General in this case would be held until that legislation is passed and that it would be left for whatever body the Government put in place under that legislation to make a decision in this case. Could the Minister confirm that this case will be dealt with by the Government and will not be postponed until new legislation is passed and implemented to deal with any other case in which there may be allegations with regard to new evidence or with regard to an injustice in a conviction that resulted from a court hearing?
This is a very important point. I want to be absolutely clear that I understand the Deputy. He wants me to dispose of this as quickly as possible, through Government, and get a decision rather than wait until the legislation promised on 15 September——
I am not so much saying that I would rather the Minister did that. I am just trying to ascertain whether it is the intention of the Government to deal with the issue or to postpone the making of a decision until the new body is established.
That is not the intention. I would like to dispose of this issue in the immediate future, I hope within a month, by getting the Government decision on it and settling it in that way. On the question of the legislation referred to as announced on 15 September 1992, the Government have authorised the drafting of that Bill which I believe will be widely supported on all sides of the House. It will include the appropriate procedures by which cases such as this one can be reviewed by the Court of Criminal Appeal. The fact that a decision was taken by Government in a particular way does not mean that that avenue could not be pursued if it was appropriate once the legislation is processed through the House. The short answer is that the matter should be disposed of in the immediate future and if there is a relevance or an appropriateness attached to that legislation in dealing with that case, so be it.
Will that legislation be before the House before the Christmas recess?
I would hope so. I would give it high priority and I hope the House would agree that the legislation on the whole question of miscarriages of justice is long awaited. I would have thought the Deputy would be quite supportive of the Minister's position.
He does not want you to be the Minister.
I suppose I understand that, but for the time being he has to suffer that.
It is two years since the Martin Report.
I think Deputy O'Keeffe will agree that the Minister was not too tardy in dealing with that legislation and some other measures which many thought might not see the light of day under this Minister. However, I know the Deputy is reviewing his opinion about me in that regard as well.
The Minister should not tempt me.
Have I said something to stir the wits at the back?
