Vol. 473 No. 6
21 Mr. O'Donoghue asked the Minister for Justice the current position regarding the investigation into the killing of a person (details supplied) in 1985; if her attention has been drawn to the fact that an individual has acknowledged responsibility for this deed; the steps, if any, which have been taken to investigate these claims; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [2391/97]
I am informed by the Garda Síochána that nobody has yet been made amenable for the murder of the person concerned and that the Garda investigation file on the murder is still open.
It is not the practice for Ministers for Justice to report to the House on the progress of Garda investigations and I do not propose to depart from that practice in this case, other than to say that the Garda Síochána are fully aware that a person has claimed responsibility for the murder.
The essential element in any murder investigation is, of course, the availability of evidence sufficient to support a criminal prosecution in the courts. That is a matter for determination by the Director of Public Prosecutions who is independent in the exercise of his functions. Accordingly, it would be inappropriate for the Minister for Justice to comment or intervene in this case.
I am not asking the Minister for Justice to comment or interfere with this case. What I am asking is whether the Minister would accept that truth, justice and the observance of democratic law demand that the claim of an individual to have committed the murder of the individual, the subject matter of the question, in 1988, 1992 and, again, in 1994, merits attention from the Garda Síochána. Would the Minister of State accept that much.
I fully appreciate why Deputy O'Donoghue would wish to press me beyond the answer I have given. I also appreciate why he and many others outside this House have difficulty in understanding why the various statements made by the individual concerned have not resulted in an immediate legal response.
The reason for answering in the way I have is not just that it happens to correspond to answers given by Ministers in other situations where a criminal file remains open. Nor is it a case of unnecessarily restricting information simply for the sake of so doing. The real reason is that detailed disclosure as to where precisely a matter of this kind starts, what contacts may have been made and what precisely may or may not be contemplated by the Garda Síochána and the DPP could genuinely prove to be counterproductive. It would be very wrong to take my answer as a signal of inactivity on the part of the Garda Síochána in this case, far from it. The Garda Síochána are fully aware of what is being claimed and will continue to make their own professional judgments in consultation as necessary with the DPP as to what course of action may be appropriate.
Would the Minister of State accept that, irrespective of the circumstances, it is of paramount importance in a sovereign democratic State that the rule of law be upheld and that in this context it is an unquestioned fact that in an interview with the Kerryman newspaper and the Sunday Times in 1988 and 1992, respectively, the individual concerned said he shot the individual, the subject matter of this question and, since his release from prison, has failed to deny it? Would the Minister of State further accept that the appropriate time to consider what should happen subsequent to any court decision is when the rule of law has been upheld?
It should not be necessary to tell the Deputy that the law will be applied by this Minister and by this Government. The reply I have given today is in line with replies given by previous Ministers for Justice of different political persuasions over the years. In the present circumstances I have no intention of going beyond that.
Since this question was last laid before the House, if it was, the individual concerned has been released.
