Vol. 466 No. 2
2 Mr. B. Ahern asked the Taoiseach the steps, if any, he has taken to ensure that sensitive issues, such as the extradition of Anthony Duncan, are brought to his attention promptly and that the full facts of any administrative errors are promptly reported to him. [11077/96]
3 Mr. O'Donoghue asked the Taoiseach whether it is the function of the Attorney General to examine the content of extradition documents; if so, the reason the Attorney General failed to note that the warrant for the extradition of Anthony Duncan was a copy when the certificates which were endorsed on the original warrant did not appear on documents before him. [11083/96]
4 Mr. O'Donoghue asked the Taoiseach when the Attorney General first became aware of the fact that there was a fundamental flaw in the warrant before the District Court in respect of the Anthony Duncan extradition case. [11084/96]
5 Mr. Cowen asked the Taoiseach when the Attorney General first became aware of the fact that the original warrant was missing in relation to the Anthony Duncan extradition case; and when efforts commenced to find the original warrant. [11085/96]
6 Mr. Dempsey asked the Taoiseach when the attention of the Attorney General was first drawn to the problems in relation to the warrant for the extradition of Anthony Duncan; when the attention of the Attorney General was drawn to the fact that the document involved was not an original; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [11089/96]
7 Mr. O'Dea asked the Taoiseach whether the Attorney General, as part of his responsibility for monitoring extradition cases, had satisfied himself that the documentation in relation to the Anthony Duncan case was in order prior to the case coming before the court. [11092/96]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 1 to 7, inclusive, together.
I propose to deal in some detail with the involvement of the Attorney General's office in this case. The involvement of the Department of Justice and the Garda Síochána has been dealt with separately by the Minister for Justice.
The sequence of events in relation to the involvement of the Attorney General's office in the matter is as follows. Mr. Duncan was being held in custody on foot of a detention order under section 30 of the Offences Against the State Act, 1939. The detention order was due to expire early on the morning of Saturday, 13 April. At that time he would either have to be released or charged.
Late on the evening of Friday, 12 April, in advance of any original warrant being transmitted to the State, because of the urgency of the case, the UK authorities sent a complete copy of the original warrant and supporting documentation, i.e. the affidavit and certificate, to the Office of the Attorney General here by fax. The Attorney General's office then fixed this documentation to the Chief State Solicitor's office and the Department of Justice. This faxed documentation was examined on that evening by one of the legal assistants in the Office of the Attorney General and by the Attorney General.
These copy documents, sent to the Office of the Attorney General from the UK, were complete and in order. The solicitor in the Chief State Solicitor's Office dealing with the matter on behalf of the State, also carried out a thorough examination of the copy documentation received from the UK. A complete copy of the warrant which had been received from the UK authorities was then furnished to the Garda Síochána by the Chief State Solicitor's Office, again by fax, on the evening of Friday, 12 April. The Garda Síochána were aware that the original warrant when it arrived should conform with that documentation.
I have been informed by the Department of Justice, on the basis of reports furnished by the Garda on 21 May, that the original warrant, — as distinct from the copy — certificate and affidavit would appear to have been received by hand from a British police officer at approximately 11 o'clock on the night of 12 April.
At approximately 11 a.m. on Saturday, 13 April, when the case was being dealt with, in the course of his evidence the detective superintendent dealing with the case handed into court what purported to be the original warrant, certificate and affidavit. These were examined, in turn, without comment, by the judge and the defence solicitor. They were then examined by the solicitor for the State. At that point she — the solicitor for the State — noticed there was no exhibiting clause on the back of the purported warrant. She realised at that point that the documentation was defective because of the lack of this exhibiting clause. Therefore, without making any other comment, and so that an investigation could commence as to what had happened, she asked for the case to be allowed to stand over until later in the list. The District Court judge agreed to this request.
During this period, while the hearing was delayed, it became apparent that the document which had been produced in court was a photocopy, bearing an original endorsement by the Garda Síochána and not the exhibiting clause that would have appeared on the original documentation handed over by the UK authorities. At this point, the solicitor for the State had no information on whether the Garda authorities had been furnished with an incomplete copy by the UK authorities which the Garda had then endorsed or whether the Garda had made a copy and endorsed it in error. The solicitor immediately sought instructions from the legal assistant in the Office of the Attorney General who was dealing with the matter, who in turn sought directions from the Attorney General. This was when the Attorney General first became aware that it was a copy and not the original that had been presented in court. This was approximately 12.35 p.m. on Saturday, 13 April.
Meanwhile instructions were given by the solicitor acting for the State to the Garda Síochána and the English police officer present to carry out an immediate search to see if the original warrant could be located, but this search proved fruitless. On the situation being explained to the Attorney General that the document produced in court was not an original warrant and that the original warrant could not be found, the Attorney General had no alternative but to instruct the solicitor to withdraw the application for extradition.
At this stage, neither the Attorney General nor any of his officers were aware of how this defect in the documentation had come about. While they has seen a copy which had been faxed to them in advance by the UK authorities the previous evening, they had no means of knowing at any stage whether the original had ever been transmitted to the Garda Síochána. It was clear that an error had been made either by the persons responsible for transmitting the original warrant from the UK side or, if that warrant had been properly transmitted by them, by the Garda Síochána, but neither the Attorney General nor his officer had any means of identifying which of these two reasons underlay the defect in the extradition warrant. It should be added that neither the Attorney General nor any member of his office had a means of knowing whether an original warrant had been delivered to the Garda Síochána or of knowing whether the mistake had been made by the Garda rather than the UK authorities. They only learned this after the Garda investigation was completed on 21 May.
It is not and never has been part of the function of the Attorney General to carry out a personal examination of documents to be presented in court such as warrants to be used in extradition cases. It is believed that there has never previously been a case in the State where the absence of the original documents caused an extradition application to fail.
The circumstances in which this application failed are unique. The function of the Attorney General is to examine the content of the copy documents furnished to the Attorney for the purpose of exercising his functions under section 44 of the Extradition Act, 1965, as amended. This involves ascertaining whether there is a clear intention to prosecute founded on the existence of sufficient evidence. In addition, the Attorney advises the Garda as to the fulfilment of certain other legal criteria which must be met before extradition can take place and his advice is then conveyed to the Minister for Justice. This is the principal purpose of the Attorney's involvement in cases of this kind and his function does not extend to examining warrants to establish their originality.
The full facts only became available on 21 May when the Minister for Justice received the report of the Garda inquiries into the case. The Minister conveyed these to the House at the earliest possible opportunity through a written reply to a Dáil question and through a public statement at that time. Let me also emphasise the following points concerning the subject matter of today's questions about the involvement of the Attorney General's office: 1. There was no information available on 13 April which would lead the Attorney General's office to be aware which police force had mishandled the matter; 2. the Attorney General's office has no operational responsibility for the Garda Síochána; any investigation was a matter for the Minister for Justice or the Garda authorities. It was clear that the warrant had been mishandled by one or other police force, or maybe by both, but that was not determined until the completion of the Garda report dated 21 May; 3. in the aftermath of the failed extradition on 13 April, the Attorney General's first priority was to consider and decide upon the new warrant which was furnished by the UK authorities the following day and this consideration and decision took place between 2 a.m. and 6 a.m. on the morning of Sunday, 14 April. That process was completed later on Sunday 14 April, and further action on that matter now awaits the outcome of separate criminal proceedings in this jurisdiction; and 4. the Attorney General's office had no role or function in investigating or distributing blame as between the two police forces.
Finally, I would refer Deputies' attention once again to the statements issued by the Garda Síochána on 22 and 26 May 1996. I am satisfied that these statements explain the full factual situation in relation to the missing warrant.
The Taoiseach said the UK authorities faxed a copy of the original document they were subsequently sending to the Attorney General's office. I presume that faxed copy was complete; it included the British endorsement. Was it not clear, therefore, that on the day of the court hearing the Garda presented in court a document that did not include the British endorsement? Does that not make it fairly evident that the fault lay on the Irish side, particularly in view of the fact that the British warrant was sent via a senior British police officer who personally delivered it to the Garda, who was present in court, as the Taoiseach said, and who could have confirmed — presumably he did confirm — when the case collapsed that he had brought the original warrant from England? Will the Taoiseach agree it was possible to confirm it at that time? Finally, the Minister for Justice told us last week that the copy documentation was produced to her at approximately 12.30 a.m. or some such time. Will the Taoiseach tell us from where that copy came? Did it come from the Attorney General's office or from the Garda? The Minister for Justice has confirmed that document was complete, that it included the British endrosement.
To deal with the first part of the Deputy's question, it is correct that the copied documentation received in the Attorney General's office contained the exhibiting clause which was absent from the copy presented in court. When the absence of that exhibiting clause was identified by the solicitor acting for the State in court an initial request was made to stand down the case for the time being. It was subsequently established by the solicitor acting for the State, in consultation with all the officers present, that what had been presented to the court was not the original but a copy. It was not possible at that stage, in the short space of time available, for the solicitor or the relevant authorities, either the British or Irish police forces, to establish where the fault lay in terms of the fact that an original document had not been presented in court. At that time the priority of the people concerned was to find the original document. They were searching for it and until they had completed their searches they obviously could not determine where it was or who was responsible for it not being where it should have been. That search occupied most of the time.
The next priority was to deal with the new warrant which subsequently arrived. That had to be examined by the Attorney General in accordance with the relevant sections of the Extradition Act. The question of attribution of blame as to who was responsible for the fact that it was not the original document produced in court was the responsibility of the Garda authorities, which they subsequently discharged in their report of 21 May. The information was not available to the Garda; it could not draw any conclusions on the matter until it had completed those investigations which were not completed until 21 May. As soon as that report was completed by the Garda authorities, the relevant information derived from it was presented to the House in response to a written question.
In regard to the latter part of my question the Minister for Justice stated that she received a complete copy which included the British endorsement. From where did that copy come? Did it come from the Garda or directly from the UK?
I informed the House in my original reply that the Attorney General, having received his photocopy which was faxed to him, faxed on a copy of it to the Department of Justice and to the Chief State Solicitor's Office on the night of Friday, 12 April. I presume it was through that route the Department of Justice obtained its copy. There would also have been other communications from the Garda to it, but obviously the ones with which I am concerned are the communications from the Attorney General's office to the Department of Justice. On the evening of Friday, 12 April a copy of what had been received by the Attorney General's office was passed to the Department of Justice.
Was the UK police officer who brought that original warrant asked if he brought over an original warrant? Did he confirm that he did?
I presume he was asked, but I presume there was conflicting evidence at that time in light the number of both Irish and UK officers, who were in or around the court. A definitive conclusion could not be reached at that stage.
There was only one English officer.
The priority of the people concerned at that time was to find where the original was, if they could not find it, to get a new warrant, and when they received the new warrant to deal with it in the short time that was available.
They only needed a "yes" or "no" from one man.
Subsequently, the issue of establishing what had gone wrong was undertaken by the Garda Síochána. It came up with its final conclusions on the matter on 21 May. It did not come to any conclusions about the matter until it presented its report to the Minister for Justice on 21 May. Any reports which suggest it had come to preliminary conclusions on the matter have been denied by the Garda Síochána.
Will the Taoiseach tell the House when the Attorney General first spoke to him on this subject and also detail any subsequent discussions the Attorney General had with him? Given that extradition is such a sensitive matter in Anglo-Irish relations and the Taoiseach was engaged in numerous conversations with the British Prime Minister, is it not reasonable that the Attorney General should have kept the Taoiseach informed?
The responsibilities of the Attorney General in this area are essentially of a legal rather than a political nature. The Attorney General's responsibility is, as set out in the Extradition Acts, to establish that there is a case to answer. He does not examine this matter under political direction or on the basis of political responsibility. He makes an independent judgment as a law officer as to whether there is an adequate case to answer and whether legal requirements are being met. It would not therefore be appropriate for him to consult me about matters of that kind during the process.
We are not asking the Taoiseach about that. He should answer the question.
It was established by the Irish authorities when the original extradition legislation was debated that it was important — and Deputies who were in the House at the time will remember this — that an Irish law officer, acting in a legal as distinct from a political capacity, should look at the warrants to establish that the case was correct and legally adequate. There had been experience previously of people being extradited and their cases not being proceeded with and so on.
That is correct but the Taoiseach was not asked about that.
The Attorney General did not act in any sense under my direction. He acted in an independent capacity in line with his constitutional function.
The Taoiseach was not asked that.
Therefore, he did not report to me on the matter.
I thank the Taoiseach for the statement he has made. Is it not a fact that on or around the weekend of either 13, 14 or 15 April the Attorney General referred this matter in some way to the Taoiseach?
No.
Is it not a fact that when the Taoiseach tried to recollect last week to whom he had spoken about this matter, he remembered a discussion he had that weekend with the Attorney General and not the Minister for Justice? Is it not reasonable to assume the Attorney General would have discussed this important matter with him on that weekend when it was such a major political issue both here and in Britain? Is it not reasonable to assume the Attorney General would have fully briefed the Minister for Justice on the matter and the Minister for Justice, if not the Attorney General, would have spoken to the Taoiseach about it?
The Taoiseach seems to have said in all his statements that nobody spoke to him about it. Even though it was a major political issue and a major issue in Anglo-Irish relations and the Taoiseach spoke to the British Prime Minister, neither his Attorney General nor the Minister for Justice told him anything about it. Several weeks later when he answered a question from Deputy Burke and me he said he could not see any reason it could have been other than on the British side. It is unbelievable.
Obviously, I have thought about the matter. I can say now, having considered the matter carefully, that the Attorney General did not discuss the matter with me on the weekend in question or subsequently until the matter became a matter of public controversy. The Deputy's suggestion that he did do so is not accurate and I ask him to accept my word on the matter. The Attorney General did not discuss the matter with me. I have talked to the Attorney General since about the matter and he agrees that he did not discuss it with me.
It would not be appropriate for him to become involved in discussion with me on a matter that is part of his legal responsibilities, as distinct from his responsibilities as adviser to the Government. He acts as an independent officer and as part of the judicial system in assessing the validity of the case set out in the warrants. It would not be appropriate for him to discuss that with me or to seek my advice as to his interpretation.
That is not the question.
Any suggestion that he should do so would be to suggest that the extradition process should be politicised and subject to political considerations. That is not the way it should be and the Attorney General was perfectly correct not to involve me in the matter.
The Taoiseach stated last week that the first time he could recollect the Minister for Justice speaking to him about it was the previous Sunday.
I did not say that. The Deputy has made so many allegations about other people that he should be careful.
The Taoiseach could not remember.
The Minister for Justice said it was the previous Sunday night. This was a major issue which was extremely sensitive, causing quite a bit of conflict both in Britain and here. Was the Taoiseach happy that the Minister for Justice did not tell him what happened in the court and did not give him any report of what happened at 2 a.m. and 6 a.m. until last Sunday week?
I am perfectly happy that all of the officers appointed by the Government to do their job in this matter have done their job effectively. I refer particularly to the Minister for Justice and the Attorney General.
This Taoiseach is in a minority of one in that.
Both have acted with propriety and integrity, despite the criticisms and imputations about their integrity in both Opposition parties. I reject also the imputations about my integrity that have been bandied about with such freedom by Deputies who profess to be concerned about standards in public life.
The Taoiseach is whistling into the wind.
The Attorney General was perfectly right not to get involved in seeking political judgments on how he should handle these documents. I remember the attitude taken by Fianna Fáil when the legislation was introduced. They wanted to ensure that the extradition process involved independent legal judgment by an Irish officer before extradition was allowed to take place. They did not want automatic acceptance of the validity of warrants and documents coming from overseas. They wanted to be sure an Irish law officer was satisfied in the matter and that is what the Attorney General was doing. In so doing he was not acting politically but as a law officer of the State making independent judgments. Therefore, it would not have been appropriate for him to involve me——
The Taoiseach was not asked about that.
——in seeking direction from me or to apprise me of what he was doing because he is required to act independently in this area. Deputies should remember that the safeguards involved in the independence of the Attorney General in this matter are important to individual citizens. The Deputy's attempt to try to create a situation in which the Attorney General, instead of dealing with these matters independently, has to seek political cover, and to involve the Taoiseach in every decision if it succeeded would undermine the safeguards in the extradition legislation that were intended to be in place when the legislation was passed. Deputies should be aware they are unduly politicising this process for short-term party political gain. The Attorney General's arm's length involvement vis-á-vis me in this matter is necessary to safeguard citizens in matters of this kind and should not be influenced by any political considerations even for improving Anglo Irish relations.
On the weekend in question when this extradition case collapsed did it cross the Taoiseach's mind to inquire what had gone wrong? When he prepared questions for answering on 24 April and when he told me he was certain the fault was not in the Attorney General's Officer — and I accept that — did he have any discussion with the Attorney General on that parliamentary question?
I received briefing from the Attorney General's Office but I did not discuss the matter with him. I was satisfied with the information supplied to me, which I have repeated here in greater detail, that the Attorney General's Office was not at fault in the matter. I stand over what I said on 24 April that:
I am satisfied there was no failure to apply appropriate procedures in the Attorney General's Office which contributed to the difficulties that occurred in this case. As to the difficulties elsewhere and the attribution of any responsibility for those between different jurisdictions and offices, that will be the subject of a detailed parliamentary reply from the Minister for Justice.
That parliamentary reply was given on 21 May.
The Taoiseach said the Attorney General spoke to him about this when it became a matter of public controversy. I contend that was the afternoon of 13 April, 1996.
No.
The Deputy has no basis for saying that.
That is an assertion that the statement I made in the House is untruthful. I ask the Deputy to withdraw it. There was not consultation with me on that matter on the weekend in question.
I said it became a matter of public controversy on that day.
I am telling the Deputy now, and I have said it already, that the matter was not discussed with me by the Attorney General on the weekend of 12, 13 and 14 April.
It was a matter of public controversy——
The Deputy has no evidence for it.
Order. The contention made by the Deputy is a political charge and not a personal imputation.
The Deputy does not have a leg to stand on.
Let us not allow it to drift; let us keep it orderly.
I am trying to do that. On 13 April this became a matter of controversy. On 24 April when questions were asked in the House the Taoiseach obviously had not got the facts which, I believe, were known within the Department of Justice and elsewhere. On 19 May the Taoiseach, based on what the Minister for Justice said, found out some more information on this matter. Am I to believe, from what he has said, that he did not know from the Attorney General? Is it acceptable to the Taoiseach that several weeks had elapsed between 13 April and 19 May, and he was totally unaware of what was going on between his Attorney General, the British Police, the British Attorney General, the Minister for Justice and the Department of Justice? Am I to take the Taoiseach on good faith and accept that is the truth? Is that what the Taoiseach is asking me to accept?
Deputy Ahern has repeated a statement he has made outside this House to the effect that the Department of Justice knew where the fault lay before the report of 21 May. I will quote a statement from the Garda press office and I ask Deputy Ahern if he accepts the truth of this statement or if he says the Garda press office stated: "The lead story in the Sunday Independent today, 26 May, suggests that the Garda authorities had, prior to 20 May 1996, established what the factual situation was in relation to the missing original warrant and that this information tion was passed to the Department of Justice. There is no truth in this”. I ask Deputy Ahern if he is saying that statement by the Garda press office is untrue, because he has repeated in this House and outside the House statements which flatly contradict the truthfulness of that Garda press office statement? I ask him, in view of the necessity to maintain good relations between all parties in this House and the Garda Síochána if he will accept the truthfulness of that Garda press office statement here and now and stop repeating untrue statements?
Will the Taoiseach answer the question I asked him?
The Deputy has not a leg to stand on.
On the statement to which the Taoiseach referred, it is important to read it carefully because it speaks about the factual situation and the Taoiseach talks about the full facts in his reply. Is the Taoiseach denying that the Department of Justice received any report from the Garda in the early afternoon of Monday 15 April accepting responsibility for mislaying the original documents? Will the Taoiseach say if he denies that the Department of Justice received that report? Will the Taoiseach agree that it was grossly unfair to the Garda to suggest that it kept the Government, the Attorney General and the Department of Justice completely in the dark for six weeks in regard to the fact that it accepted it was responsible for the human error in the first instance? Will the Taoiseach agree this issue is not really about that human error, but about the concealment and the cover-up by the Taoiseach, by his colleagues in Cabinet and by the Attorney General, that that is what we are witnessing here today——
Does the Deputy accept the statement of the Garda?
——and that the Garda was drawn in to try to take away from what was really happening? Is the Taoiseach denying that report went to the Department of Justice early on the Monday afternoon?
Any allegation is good enough for Fianna Fáil.
Charges against Members of the House are quite in order but charges have been made about a constitutional officer outside the House. The Chair has consistently asked Members to be alert to the fact that such persons have no redress against accusations made against them in this privileged assembly. Be careful therefore of making serious allegations, except by way of substantive motion.
The charge against me by Deputy Woods to the effect that I have concealed a matter from the House, that I have been involved in a cover-up is a charge that I regard as contemptible and untrue and I ask the Deputy to withdraw it. I have not been involved in a cover-up in this matter and I believe there is a genuine difficulty here. The Fianna Fáil Party is so hurt by the loss of office that it believes——
Answer the question.
——in terms of any known untruth——
The Taoiseach should answer the question he was asked.
——that if it throws enough mud some of it will stick. Any untruth it can attach to a member of the Government is fair game. This is not acceptable behaviour and the use of untrue statements, such as that made by Deputy Woods today, shows the utter bankruptcy of his party on this matter.
The Taoiseach should answer the question he was asked.
It has to resort to making charges it knows are untrue and that have been denied by the Garda authorities——
The Taoiseach should check with the Minister.
——and officials of the Department of Justice who felt it necessary to issue a statement to defend their integrity from Fianna Fáil attack. It has also attacked the integrity of statements from the Garda press office.
Is there any chance the Taoiseach might answer the question he was asked?
Is there nothing Fianna Fáil is prepared to believe? It appears it will not believe assurances from anybody and will persist in making false charges regardless of the damage to the reputations of the people concerned.
The Taoiseach did not answer the question he was asked.
Answer the question, Taoiseach.
I asked the Taoiseach to answer one question. Does he deny that the Department of Justice received a report from the Garda authorities in the early afternoon of Monday, 15 April, accepting responsibility for mislaying the original warrant? Will he leave aside the bluster and answer that question?
That allegation made by the Fianna Fáil Party has been denied on the record by the officials of the Department of Justice. It is not true and the Deputy is repeating untruths time and again even though he knows they are untrue. Furthermore, I draw his attention to the fact that the report from the detective superintendent who investigated the matter stated that because an initial review of the steps taken to deal with this matter failed to establish the reason the original warrant was not available to the court, a detective chief superintendent was appointed to carry out a further review of the whole matter. That is what is stated in the report furnished on 21 May and it illustrates that the Garda authorities did not know where the fault lay. Therefore, they could not have conveyed information to the Department of Justice as to where the fault lay because they did not know.
That is not what they are saying.
They did not establish where the fault lay until the report of 21 May. That is what the Garda, the Department of Justice and the Minister for Justice have said and it is what I am saying, and the attempts by the Fianna Fáil Party to say we are all telling untruths is contemptible.
Why was the garda sergeant transferred on Thursday, 18 April? Why did the Taoiseach say on 24 April that there was no reason to believe there had been any error or omission on the Irish side? How could he make that statement? Even after the report he gave us today, there had to be, at a minimum, a question mark over the Irish side and the Taoiseach should have taken the matter seriously. Obviously, from what he said, he did not seem to care, to know or to be interested.
That has nothing to do with the allegations the Deputy made earlier.
I will read again in full what I said on 24 April.
The Taoiseach is filibustering.
Deputy Ray Burke asked:
In relation to the specific case referred to, is the Taoiseach clearly informing the House that no error occurred in relation to documentation on the Irish side?
I replied:
I have no reason to believe that there was any omission on the Irish side but the matter is the subject of a separate parliamentary question to the Minister for Justice. This question tabled by Deputy Harney relates solely to the procedures in the Attorney General's office, which I have outlined. I have further stated I am satisfied there was no failure to apply appropriate procedures in the Attorney General's office which contributed to the difficulties that occurred in this case. As to the difficulties elsewhere and the attribution of any responsibility for those between different jurisdictions [between Ireland and Britain] and offices [between different offices in either jurisdiction] that will be the subject of a detailed parliamentary reply from the Minister for Justice.
I made it clear that I had not come to any conclusions on the matter. I was not aware of any reasons to suggest that the Irish side was at fault, but I made it absolutely clear that no conclusions had been reached other than so far as the Attorney General's office was concerned. The responsibilities of the two police forces were to be the subject of an investigation which would then be the subject of a parliamentary reply, which is what happened.
While extradition is a legal procedure, does the Taoiseach accept it has enormous political implications for Anglo-Irish relations? That being the case, is it not strange that when he heard of the collapse of the extradition case on 13 April — which I am sure he heard about given the extensive coverage it received — did he not feel obliged to ask the Minister for Justice and the Attorney General what went wrong?
It was appropriate to allow the investigations to proceed and for responsibility to be attributed after due investigation by the Garda authorities. I do not believe it is appropriate, for example, in regard to the attribution of blame within the Garda structure, that people should be forced to rush into judgments that could affect the careers of individuals without making sure that everybody is heard. It is important to make the point that some of the people who had a contribution to make on deciding whether the original document was presented to the Garda Síochána were in another jurisdiction. In other words, people in Britain as well as here had to be interviewed.
While I regret the delay in the matter, it is appropriate that the necessary degree of time should be taken to get the facts right because it affects the rights and positions of individuals. It would not be appropriate for me to contact the Minister for Justice every other day asking her to publish reports, irrespective of whether she has all the facts, merely to enable me to answer questions in the Dáil.
The Taoiseach is in charge.
If I appoint a person to do a job, I believe he or she should be allowed do it. That is my view of my responsibilities, but others can take another view if they wish.
The less one knows, the less trouble one will get into.
The Minister for Justice and the Garda authorities have done their job in this matter. There was a human error, the source of which has been established and the procedures can continue to work adequately. I do not believe, however, that the attempt by the other Opposition party to politicise this extradition process is in the best interest of Irish citizens.
That is nonsense.
If people have to look over their shoulders politically when making legal judgments about the rights and wrongs of an extradition case——
This is ridiculous.
——the liberty of our citizens will be less than it ought to be. I regret the attempt by the other Opposition party to politicise this process in that way.
The Taoiseach misunderstands the point.
The point at issue here is the integrity of the extradition system and the behaviour of the officers given that duty by the State, including their political masters. In response to Deputy Harney's question, the Taoiseach said he had allowed the investigation to proceed. Who told him an investigation was proceedings? He went to great lengths to tell us he had not been told anything. He did not discuss the matter with the Attorney General or the Minister for Justice. Therefore, who told him that weekend when the political row was starting that an investigation was under way? After the débácle in the court on the Saturday, on Saturday evening and Sunday the acting Government press secretary or the duty officer indicated that this was a matter of responsibility for the other side of the water, that it was not the responsibility of the Irish authorities.
If the official version is to be believed — the Taoiseach is asking us to believe it — the Taoiseach, the Minister for Justice and the Attorney General were not in control of a fundamental issue of basic human rights of an individual in terms of extradition at such a sensitive time in Anglo-Irish relations. The Taoiseach is also asking us to believe that the Garda kept the Government and the country in the dark as to what had been going on for six weeks, but I do not accept that. Is it not more probable that the Government hoped that the embarrassment caused by the cover-up at the weekend, when it said that the matter was not our responsibility, would go away? How could the Taoiseach defensibly say in the Dáil on 24 April that he had no reason to believe there had been an error or omission on the Irish side on the matter that contributed to the difficulties? The Taoiseach said he had been briefed by the Attorney General's office.
The question is over long and tending towards debate.
The Taoiseach quoted part of his reply to me.
Quotations at Question Time are not in order.
I asked the Taoiseach whether an error had occurred on the part of the Irish authorities in handling the case. I did not specifically ask about the Attorney General's office but about any of the Irish authorities, and he said on 24 April that he had no reason to believe there had been any error or omission, despite the fact that, as he said, the Garda had not given him the information at that stage. Who told the Taoiseach the investigation was under way?
I received no briefing in the matter on the weekend in question, from the Minister for Justice or anybody else. I was informed of the investigation in preparation for the replies I gave the House on 24 April. At that time the Department of Justice informed me of the matter — although I was not answering questions about the Department of Justice it was anticipated that supplementary questions would be asked about the matter in terms of the documents presented not being the original. I said at the time that an investigation was being conducted by the Garda Síochána and that the Minister for Justice was awaiting its results.
That was 12 days later.
I was answering Deputy Harney in that context. I did not believe that subsequent to 24 April it would have been appropriate for me to have contacted the Minister for Justice every second day demanding completion of the investigation. I believed it was appropriate that the investigation, which was an exercise in hindsight, should be through and fair to all concerned and I did not involve myself in demanding weekly or daily reports on how it was progressing. I was satisfied it would be completed in the normal way, as was done. I hope that is clear to the Deputy. I was not speaking in the context of the weekend of 12-13 April when I referred to investigations.
The Deputy made a number of charges about people not being in control. It is important that we return to the basic facts. A member of the Garda apparently shredded an original document while making copies. I realise that Deputies are anxious to attach political blame for everything, and that is understandable, but I hope Deputy Burke, in referring to people not being in control, is not suggesting that I should sit in the appropriate room where documents are photocopied, in the Garda office——
That would be too much responsibility for the Taoiseach.
——to see whether a copy or an original document is shredded. That is very peculiar version of the functions of a Taoiseach or Minister. It would not be an appropriate use of time. In all systems of public administration there is a normal requirement for a degree of delegation of responsibility, and in this case there is delegation of responsibility in the first instance to the Minister for Justice. It is important to remember in regard to Garda management, that it is a matter for which the Garda Commissioner, who is separately established, with separate functions from those of the Minister for Justice, is also responsible. It was appropriate not to draw conclusions as to what happened until the appropriate authorities — in this case the Garda Commissioner — had completed the investigation, which was done on 21 May. The attempt to suggest that there should be political supervision of clerical operations of this kind is, to say the least, foolish.
The Taoiseach is being asked to be accountable to the House. He should not be flippant.
If a sensitive extradition warrant was feared to have fallen into the wrong hands and there was concern that it would turn up at a Sinn Féin press conference or in the media, would it be appropriate for the Taoiseach to be informed of the possibility?
It is appropriate that the Garda authorities should investigate in their own way the loss of any documents in their custody, and that is what happened in this case. The result of the investigation into the loss of a document in Garda custody was produced by the Garda on 21 May and presented to the House.
Did the Taoiseach have contact with Mr. Major, or did his officials have contact with the British officials on this issue? To come back to the issue of the British policeman in the court, surely the job of that policeman was to produce an original document in court in Ireland? He was delegated by the magistrates' court to do that. Is it not the case that his only jobs was to bring that document here and formally prove it in court? Surely when the court case broke down he was consulted, in which case he would have told the Irish officials that he delivered the document to the Garda at a certain time. The Irish officials, therefore, would have known without doubt that the Irish side was at fault. Is the Taoiseach saying that nobody on that side of the House accepts political responsibility for producing flawed documents in a very sensitive court case, for a delay of more than a month in coming to a final conclusion and for what in effect was a cover up from mid-April to late May?
There was no cover-up. As soon as the Garda investigation of the loss of a document in Garda custody was completed the results of that investigation were presented to this House. Nothing was covered up. The results of the Garda investigation were presented to the House within hours of being received by the Minister for Justice and she did not cover up anything in that regard.
The Taoiseach's use of the words "final" and "definitive" says it all.
As regards what happened in the environs of the court on the day in question, obviously the first priority, as I explained to Deputy O'Dea, was to see if the original document could be found, given that the original was not presented in court, and produced for the adjourned hearing.
It was presumed there was an original.
Much time was spent looking for the original document but it was not found. Given the urgency of the matter, rather than engage at that time in a detailed investigation as to who was responsible for the document not being an original, the immediate priority was to deal with a new warrant in view of the effluxion of time which might arise in terms of the detection of the individual concerned. Subsequently to that, time was available——
Weeks or even months.
——to investigate what had gone wrong and why the original document was not presented in court. That matter was thoroughly investigated by the Garda Síochána. I wish to repeat that the original document which was mislaid was in Garda custody from the time it arrived in this jurisdiction. It was a matter for the Garda to investigate what happened to the document and they did that. They did not produce a preliminary finding.
The Taoiseach is the Manuel of Irish politics — he knows nothing.
They produced a definitive finding on 21 May, and as soon as it was available it was disclosed to the House. There was no political cover-up in the matter.
It is like "Fawlty Towers".
As she said here on 15 April, the Minister for Justice was not satisfied with the delay in the Garda inquiry and asked them to speed it up. They presented the results of that inquiry, the only presentation they made on the matter, on 21 May. The results were presented to the House on the same day and there was no concealment of information from the House by the Minister for Justice, me or the Attorney General.
The Taoiseach is on the record over many years as stating that the House should always be given full information and documentation. Given that this is his policy, will he lay before the Dáil all the relevant information, the minutes, briefing material and details of all the contacts, written and oral, between the Garda, the Attorney General, the Department of Justice, his office, the British police and the British Attorney General?
He would need a large staff.
Will he lay that information before the House in the next few days so that everyone can see the facts?
It is called openness.
I have considered this option because I am anxious to be as open as possible on this matter. However, it has never been the case that communications of an official kind between the Garda Síochána and the Minister for Justice have been disclosed to the House, and I do not propose to depart from that practice.
Is the Taoiseach afraid of what we might see?
It would not be appropriate, in the interests of the security of the State, to establish a precedent whereby Garda communications with the Department of Justice are published under political pressure or for any other purpose.
It is a question of whether one believes people. The Garda have said they did not give any information to the Department of Justice as to the attribution of blame prior to 21 May.
They did not say that.
Equally, the Department of Justice has said it did not receive any information that attributed blame before 21 May.
On a point of order——
The Taoiseach should make the information available.
Let us hear the Taoiseach.
I have said that no such information was received before 21 May and the Minister for Justice has said that no information was received before that date.
The Taoiseach is misleading the House again.
Deputy O'Dea must be careful of making personal imputations of that kind.
The matter comes down to whether Fianna Fáil Deputies are willing to believe the truthfulness of these people.
Will the Taoiseach make the information available?
We have no problem in believing the Garda.
They are perfectly entitled to believe that I, the Minister for Justice, the Garda Síochána and the Department of Justice officials are giving false and misleading statements, but this is not the case.
Will the Taoiseach make the information available?
The Taoiseach is misleading the House.
The statements we are making are true. Fianna Fáil Deputies must decide whether this is a truthful account or not.
If we asked the Labour Party for the information it might make it available.
The time has come to deal with priority questions to the Minister for the Marine.
There is not one Labour Party Deputy on the Government benches.
We want the information.
I call Question No. 11.
On a point of order——
No, Deputy. I may hear it later but I will not be obstructed now by spurious points of order.
I would not wish to do that.
In accordance with the procedures of the House, we will proceeds to deal with questions nominated for priority.
I wish to raise a legitimate point of order. You cannot accuse me of raising a spurious point of order when you have not heard it.
I have heard points of order from the Deputy which were points of disorder.
I wish to raise a legitimate point of order.
Let us hear it.
The Taoiseach stated that the Garda had definitively denied what Deputy Ahern had alleged, which was also alleged by a national Sunday newspaper.
Deputy O'Dea writes some articles in those newspapers so there is no truth in them.
The Garda statement did not deny that, rather it accepted the full facts——
Questions to the Taoiseach are over for today.
There was a preliminary report.
I ask Deputies to allow the business of the House to proceed in an orderly fashion. I call Question No. 11.
