Vol. 502 No. 1
44 Mr. Rabbitte asked the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform the progress made in the Garda investigation into allegations that witnesses in the Garda McCabe murder trial were intimidated; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [7214/99]
As I informed the House on 9 February 1999, following the sentencing of persons in connection with the killing of Detective Garda Jerry McCabe, the Garda Commissioner has appointed a senior officer at Garda superintendent level to investigate the issue of witness intimidation in this case.
It is not the practice for Ministers for Justice, Equality and Law Reform to report to the House on the progress of specific Garda investigations and, accordingly, I do not propose to depart from that practice now other than to say that the Garda investigation in this matter is ongoing.
I am dismayed that the Minister would not be a little more forthcoming on this matter, given the absolute seriousness of this situation and the degree of frustration on all sides of the House following the sentencing of the killers of Detective Garda McCabe. It is quite exceptional.
If the Minister will not answer the specific question, I have a general query; on the day the sentence was announced the Minister promised to introduce specific legislation to deal with intimidation. He promised that that would come on foot of amendments to the Criminal Justice (No. 2) Bill, 1997, which has been languishing since finishing Committee Stage on 21 October 1998. When will we see that amending legislation?
I have been more than forthcoming on this matter. There was a debate in the House on the situation, and I answered fully all questions put to me. I met the Garda Representative Association and the Association of Garda Sergeants and Inspectors as well as the Chief Superintendents Association to discuss the matter.
It is my intention to bring forward legislation dealing with the intimidation of witnesses. I will make it a specific offence to intimidate a witness, though it is already a matter of contempt of court and, as such, is punishable by considerable sanction, as Deputy Howlin will be aware. I also intend to bring forward legislation which will provide that witnesses in certain cases will be able to give video link evidence, and I also intend making it an offence for a person to try to locate witnesses who have been relocated under the witness protection programme, which I introduced shortly after becoming Minister.
I am obviously very concerned that these provisions be put in place and I intend to include these in the Criminal Justice (No. 2) Bill currently before the House. I understand that that would require the recommittal of the legislation, which Deputy Jim Higgins pointed out. I am sure we will have the co-operation of all Members in that recommital to Committee Stage, as we cannot do so on Report Stage. I anticipate being in a position to circulate these amendments in the very near future.
This is somewhat extraneous to the contents of the Criminal Justice (No. 2) Bill, which contains very important measures dealing with drug offences, procedures in criminal matters and other issues. If this issue is as important as every Member accepts, we should be seen to protect witnesses. Rather than recommit a very large Bill that would take a lot of time to deal with on Committee Stage, would it not be more appropriate to bring in this package as a special piece of legislation that could be enacted speedily with the co-operation of this side of the House? I say this in the light of another murder today and of genuine concerns about the breakdown of the law in the city. I assure the Minister of the co- operation of this side of the House if he seeks to bring this package of proposals forward on a stand alone basis.
It can be done more expeditiously by recommitting the present Bill.
It has taken a very long time.
If we simply discuss the amendments being brought forward in connection with the intimidation of witnesses I see no difficulty in getting the legislation through the House quickly. The witness protection programme is in place for witnesses who wish to go on that programme. It is not possible to force people on to the programme or to give people protection unless they are agreeable to accepting it. The decision as to whether an individual should get protection must be based on a number of factors, for example, the intelligence available to the Garda Síochána, a fear expressed by the individual concerned or both. There are no hard and fast rules in this respect. It is also the case that there may be no intelligence available to the effect that some witnesses may be intimidated. Some witnesses who do not fear intimidation may be intimidated. The Garda Síochána does its level best in the circumstances. Unfortunately neither the Garda Síochána nor I are infallible.
Does the Minister recall that on 9 February when we discussed the consequences of the reduction of the charge in the murder of Detective Garda Jerry McCabe case we predicted the clear message that intimidation works and that there would be repeats? Unfortunately our worst fears have been borne out with the shooting and attempted assassination yesterday of one of the key witnesses in a manslaughter case. Was this witness offered the services of the witness protection scheme? When will the legislation be published? We will co-operate with its speedy passage through the House, even though there are fundamental aspects of the Criminal Justice (No. 2) Bill, 1997, with which we have difficulty. We have already argued those aspects cogently and coherently on Committee Stage. Will it be published within the next week or two weeks? I have no doubt there will be a repeat of intimidation of witnesses unless the legislation is put in place as a matter of urgency.
I indicated to Deputy Howlin that it was my intention to be in a position to circulate the amendments shortly. Deputy Howlin who professed he did not understand my first reply accepted that short reply and seemed to understand it. Deputy Higgins seems to say I was not specific enough. I cannot give a specific date but I can state categorically the legislation will be produced at the earliest possible opportunity and I am confident it will be circulated shortly.
On the question of the witness protection pro gramme, obviously we can and must put in place as many safeguards as possible. That is the reason I introduced the witness protection programme. It was a recognition that Irish society was as amenable to the threat of organised crime as any other society and that there was a necessity to introduce a programme of this kind. The programme is working well. Several high profile cases have already demonstrated the lengths to which members of organised criminal groups will go to frustrate the due process of law. The work of the Criminal Assets Bureau as well as the expertise of the National Bureau of Fraud Investigation will inevitably increase the number of cases which may involve the need for witness protection.
I was conscious of all that on my appointment. That is the reason a dedicated witness security unit has been established in Garda headquarters under the general control and direction of the Deputy Commissioner, Crime and Security Branch. It enhances the arrangements made by the Garda to protect witnesses in exceptional circumstances. Specific funding of £250,000 was provided by the Minister for Finance for the programme. It is headed up by a chief superintendent who is responsible for all aspects of the Garda witness security programme.
In response to Deputy Higgins's criticism of the scheme, it must be appreciated that while protection can be offered it can also be refused. With regard to the specific case yesterday, I express my deep horror and revulsion at this appalling crime. The Deputy will understand I do not want to go into any detail in relation to that matter, except to say it is being fully investigated by the Garda Síochána.
Will the Minister accept since he informed the House on 9 February that the amending legislation would be introduced within weeks it is reasonable, four weeks later, for him to present a timeframe to the House? Will he accept, given the exceptional interest in the circumstances surrounding the murder of Detective Garda Jerry McCabe, that a mechanism for reporting on the investigation should be established in this case so that the House can be fully apprised of progress?
I am not clear whether the Deputy is referring to the Detective Garda Jerry McCabe case or the case involving Mr. Byrne.
I am referring to the allegation of intimidation of witnesses in the McCabe case.
I have already stated that the allegation of the intimidation of witnesses in the McCabe case is being investigated. Two of the witnesses who did not give evidence in accordance with the book of evidence in the Special Criminal Court in the trial regarding the killing of the late Detective Garda Jerry McCabe were related to one of the persons charged. Another individual is a person to whom the people convicted of his killing allegedly returned on the morning of that killing. A considerable number of factors must be taken into account when looking at the whole issue of the intimidation of witnesses, not least of which is that it is not possible to impose a level of protection on individuals which they will not accept. The intelligence available to the Garda and the fear expressed by the individuals concerned are matters which have to be taken into account in assessing the risks.
I have already outlined the legislation I will be introducing. I will give consideration to any suggestions made outside this House. Suggestions have been made by some of the Garda associations. I have undertaken to examine those in due course.
Irrespective of how much legislation one might have and how well it is enforced, we are very often dealing with insidious forces which are, to say the least, quite difficult. The Garda Síochána has had outstanding success in recent times in tackling these gangs and in breaking up organised criminal gangs. That much cannot be denied but it has to be accepted in the final analysis that it is not beyond the bounds of possibility that the best of laws and enforcement sometimes fail to trap the perpetrators of vile acts.
Written Answers follow Adjournment Debate.
