Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 26 Oct 1994

Vol. 446 No. 4

Adjournment Debate. - Extradition Warrant Procedures.

Ms O'Donnell

Arising from the unsatisfactory and unconvincing reasons given yesterday by the Minister for Justice at Question Time as to the significant delay and inactivity of the Office of the Attorney General to deal with extradition warrants to extradite Fr. Brendan Smyth to Northern Ireland, very serious questions arise as to how properly the Office of the Attorney General deals with extradition matters generally.

The claim by the Minister for Justice that the Attorney General had not seen the warrants from the RUC — let alone dealt with them — seeking the extradition of a paedophile to Northern Ireland is shocking, defies belief and is unconvincing. The Minister would have us believe that although the warrants were received by the Garda on 29 April last year and forwarded to the Office of the Attorney General the following day, the files were never brought to the personal attention of the Attorney General over the succeeding seven months, or at all.

Mr. O'Malley

Or so it is claimed.

Ms O'Donnell

If we are to believe that, it raises the question that if the Attorney General does not know what is happening in his office, who does? How many other extradition warrants are lying around in the Office of the Attorney General awaiting his gaze? Is there some sort of selection process whereby they are vetted before they reach his desk? What magic ingredient is needed for the subject matter of the warrants to merit being placed before the Attorney General? That is all the more pertinent given that under section 5 of the Extradition (Amendment) Act. 1987, the Attorney General's function in the matter of extradition can only be delegated by him in circumstances of illness or absence. Who makes the key decisions in the processing of extradition warrants?

Will the Minister indicate what happened to the warrants for Fr. Smyth after they were received in the Office of the Attorney General on 30 April 1993? What clarification or further documentation was sought by the Office of the Attorney General from the prosecuting authorities in Northern Ireland either directly or through the Garda? Surely there is a file in the Office of the Attorney General the contents of which would demonstrate that some consideration was given to that matter. If the prosecuting authorities in Northern Ireland were not communicated with then either nothing was done or inquiries were made separately in the South. That gives rise to other questions. Did the Office of the Attorney General seek to contact Fr. Smyth directly? Did it seek to contact his Order, the Catholic hierarchy or the Garda to investigate the subject matter of the warrants? Those are not academic points given the nature of the case and the gravity of the crimes. Surely those serious crimes merited a deep and considered analysis in the Office of the Attorney General? Surely it was realised by the staff of the Office of the Attorney General that the matter deserved urgent attention as the paedophile could have been continuing his activities in the South. We now know that Fr. Brendan Smyth was in the South during that time. How serious must a case be before it arrives on the Attorney General's desk? He said that he did not see those files. That is an implicit attempt to pass the buck to his civil servants.

An Ceann Comhairle

I am sorry to intervene, Deputy, especially in this debate when time is restricted, but the Chair has always been concerned to ensure that there is no reflection on the character, integrity or otherwise of any member outside the House and the person to whom the Deputy referred is a constitutional officer of the House.

Ms O'Donnell

I take the Chair's point.

An Ceann Comhairle

I ask the Deputy not to say anything that would reflect on the integrity and character of the present incumbent of the office.

Mr. O'Malley

That is outrageous.

An Ceann Comhairle

Such persons have no redress against accusations or innuendoes made against them——

Mr. O'Malley

The person in question has plenty of redress if he wants it.

An Ceann Comhairle

——under the protection of this privileged Assembly and the Chair will always seek to protect those people.

Ms O'Donnell

I take the Chair's point but the Attorney General bears executive responsibility for any act or ommission in his office.

Mr. O'Malley

That is disgraceful.

An Ceann Comhairle

That always has been the practice of the Chair, and Deputy O'Malley should know that.

Ms O'Donnell

To avoid that responsibility is devoid of principle and unprecedented.

The Minister for Justice yesterday used as an excuse for the delay that the alleged offences ranged over 20 or 30 years. This is an alarming precedent because most disclosures and allegations of child sexual abuse, if made by adults, will relate to offences which happened more than 20 years ago. If this dangerous precedent is allowed stand, it will place a statute of limitations on all such cases. For that reason the procedures in the Attorney General's office are in need of review. We look forward to a full and frank account of the activities of the Attorney General's office in the report due in this House in December this year. There is clearly need for more accountability and to examine who is managing the Attorney General's office. If he does not receive files on urgent matters of public importance, particularly relating to child sexual abuse cases, we should be told who deals with them. We should also be given the reason for the unconscionable delay in this case.

Minister of State at the Department of the Taoiseach (Mr. Dempsey)

I thank the Deputy for raising this matter because it gives me an opportunity to clarify a number of incorrect statements made in the past few days about this case.

Mr. G. Mitchell

Does that include statements by the Minister?

Mr. Dempsey

An allegation was made by a number of Deputies opposite that the file was buried or lost by the Attorney General. That is clearly untrue and without foundation. I wish people would not cast aspersions on the characters of individuals. It is all right to put down a motion about procedures but it is unacceptable, in the course of a five minute speech, to attack the character of an individual and make a series of untrue allegations, as has been done tonight. The file was not seen by the Attorney General and therefore it is totally untrue to allege, as some Deputies have, that the Attorney General buried this file.

Ms O'Donnell

Somebody buried it.

Mr. Dempsey

That is a different thing.

Ms O'Donnell

The Attorney General is accountable; he is responsible for his office.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Minister should be allowed to continue without interruption.

Mr. O'Malley

Who buried it?

Mr. Dempsey

On the Deputy's reference to Northern Ireland extradition warrants, the fact that the extradition request came from Northern Ireland rather than elsewhere is totally irrelevant. The issues in this case, which required careful consideration, would have been no different had the request come from England, the Continent or the USA.

Mr. O'Malley

It would not have to go to the Attorney General.

Mr. Dempsey

There is no question that this case was complex legally because it raised for the first time extremely important legal questions about the provisions of the Extradition Act. Under the Act the High Court may direct the release of a person who has been arrested on an extradition warrant if, by reason of the lapse of time since commission of the offences in the warrant and other exceptional circumstances, it would, having regard to all the circumstances, be unjust, oppressive or invidious to deliver the person concerned. Contrary to some statements made recently, this provision applies to all extradition requests from the United Kingdom, whether of the so-called political type or otherwise. Whatever the nature of the crime alleged, it is obviously a very far-reaching and significant provision because the decisions in this case would have implications in other cases in the future. This is the first case since 1987 where a decision on this point was called for.

Mr. O'Malley

What about Father Ryan?

An Ceann Comhairle

Let us be careful about mentioning names of persons outside this House.

Mr. O'Malley

What about Father Ryan?

An Ceann Comhairle

Deputy O'Malley surely heard me.

Mr. Dempsey

It is obvious I will not be allowed to make the statement unhindered. I wish to make two final points on this case. I am more aware than most people of the burden of work in the Attorney General's office. The Attorney General takes great care to ensure that every matter is dealt with expeditiously and there are no avoidable delays in his office. I am aware, through my work on legislation, of the amount of work done in the Attorney General's office, which has greatly increased in the last four or five years.

The events surrounding this case have given rise to concerns, not only among Opposition Deputies, and I am pleased these concerns have been addressed by the Attorney General. The Attorney General has issued a direction that in future every request for extradition received by his office should be notified to him immediately it is received. That has not been the practice heretofore and was not done in this case. In that way——

Ms F. Fitzgerald

He was notified quickly enough about the 14 year old girl.

Mr. G. Mitchell

That is a nice try but the Minister will have to go further than that.

Mr. O'Malley

Who believes that?

Mr. Dempsey

I do not think Deputy O'Malley believes anything except what he says himself, and I have grave reservations about much of what he says. In that way the Attorney General will be aware of the progress of the examination in his office of every extradition request and therefore a case such as this unfortunate incident will not arise again.