Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 23 May 2001

Vol. 536 No. 6

Priority Questions. - European Court Judgments.

Brendan Howlin

Question:

54 Mr. Howlin asked the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform if he has considered the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights delivered on 4 May 2001 in the case of Jordan, McKerr, Shanahan, Kelly and others v. the United Kingdom; his views on whether the judgments have implications for Irish administrative procedures, including the coroner's inquest; his views on the steps which must be taken to satisfy the requirements of the judgment in relation to the need for effective and independent investigation of the circumstances surrounding disputed killings; if he is considering legislative proposals in this area; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [14990/01]

Mr. O'Donoghue

I am aware of the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights to which the Deputy refers and I recognise that they have important implications for investigative and other procedures in this country and in all the member states of the Council of Europe.

The Deputy will appreciate that the relevant judgments are lengthy – in all they amount to approximately 160 pages of single spacing text. In particular, they deal with a wide range of complex legal and other matters and, in the circumstances, it is clear that the issues raised require detailed consideration before a final decision can be made on what changes are necessary in this country in order to ensure that there is full compliance with the European Convention on Human Rights.

As the Deputy is already aware, I have been engaged in a major review of the Garda complaints arrangements generally, including the operation of the Garda Complaints Act, and the question of establishing an independent inspectorate for the Garda Síochána. The judgments of the European Court of Human Rights will be highly relevant to this review.

Mr. Howlin

Will the Minister accept, as did the Taoiseach during Taoiseach's Question Time, that this issue has profound implications for the independent investigation of cases analogous to the Loughgall case when a unanimous decision of the European Court, under Article 2 of the European convention, is there for us to see?

In light of this fact, and the fact that the Minister has had some time to reflect on the issue, will he acknowledge that there is an absolute requirement on him to introduce legislation to ensure that there would be an independent, that is, a non-Garda investigation – the terms of the judgment are quite clear – of a case in which there was any question over the taking of life by members of the Garda? Does he accept that such an investigation, in order to comply with the European convention, would have to be carried out externally? When will that legislation be ready or is the Minister determined to wait until Ireland is brought before the European Court before acting to regularise the situation?

Mr. O'Donoghue

My understanding of the European Court's judgment is that it was not satisfied with the procedures implemented in three particular areas. The court appeared to believe there was a lack of independence on the part of the police officers who investigated the incidents in question. In addition, it believed that although certain prosecutions were authorised, there was a general lack of public scrutiny. It also said the inquest procedures undertaken did not permit any verdict or findings which could play an effective role in securing a prosecution of any criminal offence which may have been disclosed.

The Deputy asks if this applies to an analogous situation in this jurisdiction. That is being studied within the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform and the Office of the Attorney General. The judgment has implications for this jurisdiction, prima facie. In the circumstances, it appears that change will be required.

I have already stated that I intend to introduce changes to the Garda complaints legislation and the review within the Department is now virtually ready for presentation. I have my own views in relation to it. In that context, the Deputy brought forward some good ideas on how matters might be improved. These suggestions will be considered in the context of the review. I hope we can have a full and fruitful discussion in the not too distant future as to how the Act may be amended in the interests of the general public.

Mr. Howlin

I welcome the Minister's change of heart. The ideas I brought forward were dismissed on the last occasion he took parliamentary questions. Does he accept that there is no provision for what is defined in the European Court judgment as "practical independence" from the Garda Síochána in any investigation into a shooting carried out by gardaí? To address this requirement in the unanimous decision of the European Court, we will have to amend our law not just in the token way suggested to date by tinkering with the Garda complaints legislation but in a more fundamental way by establishing an independent investigative authority. Will the Minister accede to my request that the heads of the Bill or at least proposals on the matter be brought to the Select Committee on Justice, Equality, Defence and Women's Rights before a Bill is finalised or approved by Government?

Mr. O'Donoghue

The Deputy was a Minister for a long time—

Mr. Howlin

Not Minister for Justice.

Mr. O'Donoghue

—and brought forward a large amount of legislation but I do not recall him ever bringing the heads of a Bill before a parliamentary committee.

Mr. Howlin

There are plenty of precedents.

Mr. O'Donoghue

I have no wish to nitpick but there has been no change of heart. I have already explained that I do not believe the ombudsman system in place in Northern Ireland should be introduced here. Furthermore, I never said that some of the suggestions from the Deputy were not meritorious. The opposite is the case. I indicated on a number of occasions that an investigative body and a complaints board which did not include members of An Garda Síochána was perhaps the best way forward. We will take the best suggestions on board. It would be churlish of me not to admit that some of the Deputy's suggestions are meritorious and should be taken on board. We can have a full and frank discussion of the issue without the heads of the Bill.