Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 21 Jun 2000

Vol. 521 No. 5

Adjournment Debate. - Garda Investigations.

I thank the Ceann Comhairle for allowing me to raise this serious matter on the Adjournment of the Dáil. I am also grateful that the Minister, after a long, difficult and busy day, has made himself available for this debate. I appreciate his personal attention.

The decision of the Director of Public Prosecutions to withdraw almost 160 summonses against a Donegal publican and members of his family, staff and clients is the latest development in a bizarre series of events involving a number of members of An Garda Síochána in County Donegal. Allegations of serious wrongdoing, probably unprecedented in the history of the State, have been made against a number of gardaí based in the county, allegations which require a full response at the earliest opportunity.

Apart from what appears to have been a systematic campaign of harassment against the publican, Mr. Frank McBrearty, resulting in this huge number of summonses which were withdrawn by the DPP today, even more serious allegations have been made which suggest attempts to frame some of the McBrearty family on a murder charge. Last year the High Court heard that a Garda sergeant had given a statement claiming to have seen a detective practising a signature of one of Mr. McBrearty's sons while he was in custody being questioned about the murder.

Equally serious are a number of allegations that arms and explosives were hidden by gardaí in a number of phoney dumps in County Donegal in order to boost the apparent recovery record of the gardaí and, perhaps, boost some promotional prospects. One allegation suggests that some of these explosives were actually planted in Strabane and that information was passed to the RUC in order to improve the intelligence record of the gardaí. Another allegation involved the planting of cannabis in a pub.

It must be stressed that these are allegations which have yet to be authoritatively established. However, there was clearly sufficient prima facie evidence to cause very serious concern. At least one member of the Garda has been suspended from duty. A Garda superintendent has moved voluntarily from one area to another. In May 1999 the Minister for Justice, Deputy O'Don oghue, told the House that the Garda Commissioner had appointed an Assistant Garda Commissioner, Kevin Carty, to investigate all aspects of these allegations. On 7 March this year, the Minister told the Dáil that he anticipated that the investigation should be “completed in the next six to eight weeks, following which matters will be dealt with as appropriate”.

More than three months later we have yet to hear of completion of the report, not to mention the appropriate dealing with the matter which the Minister promised. There is now serious concern in Donegal at the failure to complete the investigation and to publish the findings, as well as the apparent reluctance of the Minister to pursue the matter with sufficient vigour. I ask the Minister for an unequivocal commitment that, no matter how unpalatable the findings may be, this report will be speedily concluded and its findings published. Public confidence in the Garda requires that this be done. It is in the interest of the overwhelming majority of decent, honest, hard working members of An Garda Síochána, on whom this community depends that this be done.

Will the Minister outline what steps will be taken to compensate the McBrearty family for the injustice that has been done to them? They have been subjected to a court ordeal that has gone on for two and half years. This has involved 40 days in court. Will the State compensate the McBrearty family for their financial losses and legal costs? This is the very least that is required.

I already answered a parliamentary question on this matter this afternoon but I will again set out the current and up to date position on the investigation.

I am informed by the Garda authorities that this is a complex investigation which is being led by an Assistant Commissioner and refers to a number of separate allegations that may or may not be related. I have been advised that new issues arose in the course of the inquiries being carried out by the investigation team which have delayed completion of the inquiry.

I have been assured that every effort is being made to bring the investigation to a speedy conclusion and, while it is not possible to say precisely when it will be completed, I am informed that it is expected to be completed within weeks. Following completion, it is anticipated that the investigation file will be forwarded for the directions of the Director of Public Prosecutions. I will not, therefore, say anything that might pre-empt possible criminal proceedings.

The Deputy will appreciate that I cannot add any more to the response I gave this afternoon. The position remains unchanged. I apologise that I cannot give him a more comprehensive response. I would like to do so even as a matter of courtesy but I cannot owing to the constraints I have outlined.

Top
Share