asked the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform the action he proposes to take in the wake of the recent collapse of a trial in the Central Criminal Court; if his attention has been drawn to the serious damage done to the credibility of the vital State institutions of law enforcement and the courts; his views on whether this presents a threat to the ability of the State to prosecute serious crimes; the action he took when his attention was drawn to witness intimidation; if he sought or received a report from the Garda on reported intimidation of witnesses at a railway station; the reason he took no action at that time; his further views on whether the growth of serious crime, organised or otherwise, now presents a major threat to law enforcement and undermines public confidence in his ability to protect the citizens of the State; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
Private Notice Questions. - Criminal Justice System.
asked the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform the steps he intends to take to deal with the threat to the criminal justice system arising from the collapse of a murder trial in the Central Criminal Court after a sixth witness denied making a statement identifying the accused person as the killer; the steps he intends to take to deal with the climate of fear being created by criminal gangs; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
asked the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform the steps he intends to take in view of the implications for the criminal justice system of the collapse of a murder trial of a Limerick man in the Central Criminal Court after a sixth witness denied making a statement identifying the accused man as the killer; if he will now raise with the Garda Commissioner the allocation of additional gardaí for Limerick to counter criminal activity there; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
asked the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform the steps he has taken to address the issues which have arisen from the unprecedented events yesterday at the Central Criminal Court which have undermined the administration of justice and ultimately the security of the State.
asked the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform and the Minister of State, Deputy O'Dea, to reassure the Dáil, following the collapse of a murder trial in Dublin yesterday, that sufficient technical, human and financial resources are being provided to address the disturbing incidence of gangland killings in the State.
I propose to take all the questions together.
The Irish people have established a State and a Constitution based on the rule of law and any event or series of events which challenges that Constitution or the rule of law is a challenge to each and every one of us. The Government views with the utmost gravity the challenge which recent events pose for the Irish State, for the rights of individual citizens and of entire communities, and for our system of criminal justice.
On the collapsed trial in the Central Criminal Court there are clearly constraints on what any of us can say here today. First, there remains the very real likelihood of further criminal proceedings in relation to the person who has been tried and, second, other criminal proceedings may well arise for other persons arising out of those proceedings.
I know that everyone in this House, as members of a constitutional organ of State, will appreciate in these circumstances how careful we must be in making any public comment which could further damage the interests of criminal justice and the rule of law. It would, however, be equally wrong and dangerous for the democratic Legislature and what the Constitution terms a house of public representatives to remain mute in the face of such a challenge or to exhibit a lack of appreciation of the gravity of such events. I have been in close consultation with the Garda Commissioner and the Attorney General during the past 24 hours and have briefed the Government at length on these events and their implications.
At the outset it is right to repeat what Mr. Justice Carney said yesterday, namely, that he had never before encountered the likes of what had happened in that case. The criminal justice system deals successfully day in day out with a huge number of cases, including those involving what would be regarded as organised crime. It would be disproportionate because of difficulties in one particular case to suggest that the system has suddenly collapsed and that the constitutional and legal basis of that system has been discredited.
Without diminishing the seriousness of those events, now is not the time for exaggerated outrage, for ill-thought-out posturing or knee-jerk reaction. Now is the time to stand by the values we cherish rather than to abandon them, belittle them or despair of them. The fundamentals of our criminal justice system, including the right to jury trial in accordance with law, are sound, but that system must be responsive to the challenges it faces. That is why, as Minister with responsibility for the criminal justice system, I announced last evening that I intended in light of recent events to review the adequacy of legislative provisions, resource allocations and administrative practice to see whether and what changes are required and to consult with all appropriate persons and organisations involved in the criminal justice system. I would of course encourage every Member of this House to participate actively in that review process.
The criminal justice system had to respond previously to difficult challenges and it has done so successfully. There are many people serving lengthy sentences in prison now who once regarded themselves as untouchable and beyond the rule of law. This House responded in full measure to challenges we faced in the past. We in this House should send out a clear message today: no one is beyond the reach of the law and whatever has to be done to bring offenders to justice will be done. Just as no one is above the law, so no one is beneath it either. By that I mean that some victims of crime may have broken the law but that can never mean that they are like the outlaws of old, beyond the protection of the law or beneath the gaze of justice. The right to life is common to all in our society and the duty to vindicate and protect that right is a universal one.
Gang crime poses a serious threat in this and many other jurisdictions. It gives rise to specific issues which in turn require targeted responses. Without in any way commenting on a particular court case, the situation in Limerick is further complicated by vicious feuding which quite frankly has brought about a cult of killings. It is only right to say that the strategies adopted by the Garda have met with considerable success in Limerick and have led to a considerable number of arrests and prosecutions. I am sure nobody in this House would want to say anything which failed to recognise those achievements by the Garda Síochána.
In terms of the review which I am carrying out, I have discussed these matters with the Garda Commissioner, as indeed I have on a number of occasions. I stress to some people in this House, because they seem to be making comments in the media to the contrary, that I have visited Limerick and have spoken and been briefed at great length by the Chief Superintendent there. I am closely aware of developments in that city. I am following them with great interest and supporting the efforts of the Garda Síochána in every way I can.
The Garda Commissioner has assured me that he has devoted considerable resources to dealing with the problems in Limerick and Dublin. In turn I was able to tell him today that because of careful financial management during the year within the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform group of Votes as a whole, I am in a position to authorise a further €2 million to be expended between now and the end of the year on Garda operations targeted against gang crime. While those operations will not be confined to any one area, this amount is in addition to the already substantial extra resources which have been devoted particularly in the Limerick area this year. While for obvious reasons I will not go into detail, I assure the House that the Garda Commissioner is determined, as is the entire Garda force, that one way or another, the climate of lawlessness which prevails in parts of Limerick and Dublin will be brought to an end.
In reaction to events such as the ones we are talking about, there is an understandable clamour for the law to be changed, but we need some time to reflect on the lessons that can be learned from the events we are talking about and to assess whether any specific legislative reforms might help in dealing with this type of difficulty. I will be urgently and specifically examining precedents in Canadian law, as drawn up by Canada's Supreme Court, whereby statements, even though subsequently disputed or disavowed by witnesses, can in certain circumstances be admitted as evidence of their contents. Such law, if it were implemented by the courts as judge-made law in Ireland or by legislation on the initiative of this House, might produce very different outcomes in cases where witnesses prove hostile. In Ireland at present the courts proceed on the basis that prior inconsistent statements, as they are called, have no evidential value as to their factual content.
I will also be looking at other areas of the law, including the possibility of strengthening the law on failure to report serious felonies and failing to give an account of one's knowledge of such an event in a formal statement. I assure the House that if a specific legislative response is possible, proportionate and required I will have no hesitation in bringing one forward. In view of the remarks made earlier by the leaders of the two larger parties, I expect to have their support in bringing forward such legislative proposals.
It would be foolish, on the basis of the outcome of one particular trial, to conclude that our criminal justice system has in some way irretrievably broken down. It is important that the matters raised by the Deputies are addressed effectively. The Government is committed to ensuring that will happen. It would be even more foolish for people to believe they can give the two fingers to the community in which they live and not ultimately expect to face the wrath of that community.
I must remind the House that questions of guilt or innocence are matters for decision by the courts and that under the sub judice rule there is an onus on Members to avoid comment which might prejudice the outcome of any proceedings arising from the offences.
Notwithstanding the Minister's castigation of the Opposition for knee-jerk reactions, does he fully recognise the symbolism of what lies behind the current situation? The incident involving the two fingers is more serious than evidence in the recent past has shown. Is he aware that other jurisdictions had to take more serious steps to combat what was clearly a move in an undesirable direction? Does the Minister recognise that we are fast heading in that direction following a period of six years of zero tolerance and one and a half years into his term in office? Is he not disappointed with the efforts of the combined Administrations to date? What now does he have to offer the people of this city and others throughout the country?
Will the Minister say if, as was stated earlier on a radio programme, local warlords are organising peace conferences and holding photocalls to eliminate the forces of law and order? If so, this matter is much more serious than he has indicated to the House.
I did not hear the radio programme referred to and am not conversant with the specific incident to which the Deputy refers.
I wish to correct Deputy Durkan. I did not accuse the Opposition of knee-jerk reactions and nothing I said could reasonably be interpreted as such. I want to approach this matter on a cross-party basis. I do not believe any party in this House is more fierce in its determination to uphold the rule of law.
The Minister said that before but he never carries through.
Deputy Deasy, please allow the Minister to continue. You will have an opportunity to ask a supplementary question later.
The Deputy will have an opportunity to speak later.
The Minister says the same thing again and again but he does not mean it.
I, at least, have control over what I say and do not have to retract my words so often. The Deputy is trying to divide the House unnecessarily by pointing to the record of the previous and current Government.
They were appalling.
I will deal with that issue now. The Deputy has asked a question. I hope he will allow me to reply.
The number of serious crimes committed which recently increased and have now stabilised are fewer than when the Deputy and his colleagues were in Government.
People are not reporting them.
Please allow the Minister to continue without interruption.
They are the facts.
They are not.
This Government has invested more money than any previous Government in the Garda Síochána. The Garda Síochána now has more resources available to it in terms of aircraft and infrastructure and is better equipped than in the past. It has never been stronger in numbers. Some people became very noisy earlier when the Taoiseach referred to that fact. Let me reiterate, in terms of the 2,000 extra gardaí, that both major Opposition parties opposed that vociferously during the election. Former Deputy Alan Shatter even wrote to the newspapers saying it was a bad idea. Let us be clear about this. I do not wish to hear hypocrisy from people who did not even make a proposal at the time.
I do not remember opposing such an idea.
Membership of the Garda Síochána will be expanded to 12,200 by the end of 2004, a record high. That figure is higher than was ever achieved by any other party or parties in Government. The number of prison spaces in 1996, the time to which the Deputy referred, were in scandalous deficit. There was a revolving door in operation whereby people went into and automatically came out of prison. That situation has changed dramatically.
A different culture as regards parole boards has now set in.
Yes.
As far as I am concerned, no person convicted of murder should be freed from prison without having served at least 12 years of his or her sentence. Also, people who commit gang-type murders will be required to serve 15 to 20 years in prison. That is unlike the situation which prevailed in the past whereby people were released from prison having served only a seven-year sentence.
I am taking the necessary steps to back up the Garda Síochána. I am giving it record resources. When the Estimates are published they will show – I can say this without giving away any secrets – that greater resources than ever before have been allocated to the Garda Síochána for the forthcoming year. The Taoiseach spoke of a figure close to €1 billion. Significantly more than €1 billion will be allocated to the Garda Síochána in the coming year.
I am putting all my efforts into restructuring the Garda Síochána and into making sure its resources are committed to the fight against crime and are not dissipated in unnecessary or unproductive side activities as has been the case in the past. I am determined to ensure that that restructuring takes place. Deputy Deasy and others have asked that an organised crime unit be established. There are currently a series of support units in place, the drugs squad, the CAB, the National Bureau of Crime Investigation and the National Bureau of Fraud Investigation. Should drug-related crime be dealt with by a specialist organisation or by those dealing with paramilitaries or organising money laundering or credit card fraud? Simply saying we should wave a magic wand and re-amalgamate all the institutions of the Garda Síochána to provide for an organised crime unit is superficial thinking.
I have asked the Commissioner if suggestions in that regard are appropriate. It is for him to determine and to advise Government as to whether such reorganisations are in his view desirable. He has informed me that the current situation whereby specialist units, including the ERU, are available in every corner of the country to support local gardaí is the optimal organisation. It has been suggested that the emergency response unit should be amplified and strengthened. The Commissioner keeps the strength of that unit under constant review. If it is his view that a further allocation to that unit would be appropriate I will ensure that any necessary resources to bring that about are put in place.
We witnessed the shocking spectacle on television last night and in all today's newspapers of a young man giving the two fingers to the community. That young man was not just giving the two fingers to the community, he was giving the two fingers to our criminal justice sys tem and democratic institutions. He is now a symbol of the way in which the pendulum has swung in favour of the criminal. That is a potent symbol.
The judge said that the likes of what had happened in the case had never been encountered in his court before. That is an unprecedented statement. Does the Minister consider that he is winning the war against crime when in our third largest city witnesses will not give evidence, and citizens will not serve on a jury? Is he winning the war against crime when 18 citizens have been murdered in gangland feuds and we have only two cases being prosecuted? We are not winning the war.
The Minister has been sitting idly by for the last 18 months and should not smirk at my words. He has spent as much time condemning gardaí who have leaked material to journalists, threatening them with the dire consequence of five years in prison, as in dealing with this outrageous situation. He has still not shown us any real indication, other than a paltry €2 million, when he has already cut the overtime bill by €40 million or whatever the figure is. It is now lower than in 1997 when the rainbow Government left office. Will the Minister accept that he has allowed a lawless situation to develop where crimes are being committed and the offenders perceive that they can do so with impunity?
Where are the extra 2,000 gardaí which the Minister has promised? We have had only 51 extra gardaí since he entered office.
Where are the extra resources and modern technology? Why were we relying yesterday almost exclusively on the words of witnesses which were subsequently withdrawn? Where is the forensic evidence and modern technological advancement to ensure the Director of Public Prosecutions is not solely reliant on the words of witnesses?
Where is the plan with the Garda Commissioner? Two weeks ago there was an incredible situation when he appeared before the Joint Committee on Justice, Equality, Defence and Women's Rights and said gardaí knew who was committing all of the murders but could not get the evidence. I always thought that half the battle was to find out who the culprits were, after which it was easier to provide for the policing, surveillance or whatever was required to prosecute, convict and imprison them. Where is the plan? What will the Minister do, and how will he go about it?
One of the Minister's last points was that the situation had got out of hand in certain areas. He said there was a cluster of areas where there was lawlessness. That cluster is growing all the time. It is not just confined to Limerick today and yesterday. Dublin is included too, and it is spreading. Once the message gets out clearly to the criminal fraternity – including the new generation of criminals who have never been brought to heel by the criminal justice system – that they can take on the criminal justice system and the police, committing murder at will and with impunity, the country will be in an extremely sorry state.
Probably about 30 questions have been put to me. First, the Deputy seems to be of the view that somehow the investigation in question was deficient because there was no forensic evidence available. It was certainly not for the want of pursuing all evidential opportunities that the trial rested on the oral testimony of witnesses. It would be wrong to impugn the gardaí in question and suggest that they did not take obvious steps such as seeking corroborative forensic evidence or that somehow they missed an opportunity to collect such evidence and naively relied on oral testimony. Nothing could be further from the truth.
The second point that the Deputy put in general terms to me was that somehow we were sinking beneath a tide of criminality. That is most emphatically not the case, although it might suit him politically to make that point. The Garda Síochána is, as I said, at record strength. It is combating crime effectively right across the country. There is no doubt that things can improve—
It is looking for more resources and personnel every day.
—and I am driving the process of improvement. The Deputy is well aware that I am bringing about changes to ensure all our policing resources are available for core policing issues rather than being dissipated on sideline activities, expended in circumstances where others could do the work.
I agree with the Deputy that such behaviour as suborning witnesses to abandon their statements is a challenge to the rule of law and the community. As I said, I regard it as a matter of the utmost gravity. Our system is similar to that of Canada. However, in that country the Supreme Court has ruled that, if someone makes a statement to the police in solemn circumstances and comes to court only to disavow and reject it, pretending amnesia or whatever, the jury is entitled to see it, and if it is proved to have been made voluntarily and in circumstances supporting its credibility, they are entitled to act on it as primary evidence. That is the Canadians' version of the hearsay rule.
Are we going to have that here?
We in Ireland have a different approach, that is, the previous inconsistent statement can be used only to attack the credibility of the witness's present testimony but cannot stand as testimony in its own right to what the witness originally stated. I am urgently examining whether we should move to the Canadian model, as Deputy McCormack suggests. Perhaps we should now for the first time say that, if someone solemnly and voluntarily makes a statement and later resiles from it, and if that person is produced in the witness box and explains the reason he or she is no longer testifying in accordance with a freely given formal statement, the jury should not merely be invited to disbelieve the person's later position but should also be able to take up the original testimony in the proceedings and act upon it as if it were primary testimony.
As I said, the Canadian Supreme Court reversed centuries of common law to produce this. It said it was a more rational approach to criminal trials. I do not know and cannot say whether an attempt was made to invoke that authority in the recent case in the Central Criminal Court. However, one way or another, I will confer with all of the relevant authorities. If, rather than my asking the Judiciary to amend its practice and follow that Canadian precedent, it must be given a statutory basis in Irish law, I would be happy to do so. It flies in the face of logic that someone can go to a police station and set out in the form of a statutory declaration, including a statement that he or she is liable to be prosecuted if anything in the statement is false or if he or she does not know it to be true, later coming to court, disregarding that solemn accusatory evidence and saying he or she is suffering from amnesia, has forgotten or does not wish to testify, becoming unco-operative and attributing absolutely no value to that original statement.
I wish to consider the second point of whether the legislative changes made in 1998 in the aftermath of the Omagh bombing, which made it an offence to withhold information about serious crime involving the loss of life and so on, are sufficient. We should consider whether we need to strengthen it further by requiring people who have information in their possession to give formal testimony, in certain circumstances and subject to legitimate excuses, in a manner which will later be usable in court if disavowed. I will examine the other aspects of criminal law that have come under the microscope recently to see if they can be strengthened. There is an absolutely ample amount of recent legislative change in respect of protecting, suborning and threatening witnesses, etc. If the common law offence of attempting to pervert the course of justice is inadequate in any way and if conspiracies to produce amnesia are proven – I do not wish to prejudice anything that might happen in the future by way of criminal prosecution – I want adequate remedies to exist so that the Garda can bring to account persons who make a statement in one direction and then go in another direction for some reason.
I would like to speak about resources. I said earlier that the Garda Síochána's budget is on the verge of exceeding €1 billion per annum. It will receive a real increase in next year's budget. I am determined to ensure that the resources available to me in the justice envelope are put to productive use in the Garda. I would like to restate something that I have not heard denied – I want to stitch it into the record again. The commitment that was made in good faith by the two parties in Government to increase the strength of the Garda by 2,000 during the lifetime of this Government was opposed by both of the major Opposition parties during the last general election.
That is ridiculous.
It is true.
It is not true.
Deputy McCormack has said that it is ridiculous, but nothing is as ridiculous as his failure to—
The Minister's defence is weak, like his performance.
One always knows when Fine Gael has got it wrong, because its Members begin to bark like dogs.
The Government has a big majority.
I want to make this clear—
The Government is not depending on us.
I want to make this clear—
The Minister should check his facts.
The Deputy should check his facts by reading a letter to The Irish Times written by the former Deputy, Alan Shatter.
That is not why we are here.
The letter, written during the general election campaign, poured scorn on the commitment—
He knew that it would not be done.
The Opposition should go and look at it.
He knew that it would not happen.
He was right.
He was right.
The strength of the Garda Síochána will increase in 2004 to an all-time high of 12,200. That figure is as much as the present facilities in Templemore can deliver. At the end of that time, I will look at the entire justice family of institutions to see whether it is possible for me, within public service numbers, to refocus the manpower of the justice family to ensure that yet further gardaí are brought on board during the remaining years of this Government.
I have never such heard such a climb-down.
I am not abandoning my aim—
The Minister has already abandoned it.
—which is to further increase the strength of the Garda.
It is a major climb-down.
The membership of the Garda Síochána has increased by more than 1,100 since the last time the Deputies opposite had anything to do with running this country. More resources have been made available to the Garda, in real and nominal terms, than was the case when the Deputies opposite had anything to do with government. I refuse to be browbeaten by people who opposed—
We did not oppose it.
—our efforts to strengthen the Garda Síochána.
That is rubbish.
I refuse to be browbeaten by them in any way.
Worse still, the Government made promises that it knew it could not deliver on.
More broken promises.
More broken promises.
When the two parties opposite were last in Government—
The Minister should get after the criminals—
Sorry, hold on a second—
—rather than talking about us.
The doors of our prisons were revolving so fast that the whole system of criminal justice had been brought into disrepute.
Are they better now?
Fianna Fáil has been in Government for 13 of the last 16 years.
When the two parties in the present Government decided—
Is this some type of lecture?
This is not the Four Courts.
An Leas-Cheann Comhairle
Order, please.
The funny thing, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle, is that certain people—
The Minister should address the fears of the people of Limerick rather than politicising the issue.
—on the Opposition benches always try to shout down Government speakers.
The Minister is politicising the issue.
It seems to come naturally to them.
The Minister's arrogance is unbelievable.
There is nothing arrogant—
It is over and above arrogance.
—about pointing out to the Deputies—
Fianna Fáil has been in Government for 13 of the last 16 years.
Is it arrogant to shout people down?
The Government should live up to its responsibilities.
Is it arrogant to shout people down and to interrupt them? Do Deputy Allen's constituents send him up here—
Do not lecture me.
—to barrack other people?
Come on now. This is not the Four Courts.
Do not lecture me. You are a failure and you know it.
An Leas-Cheann Comhairle
Order, please.
The only way you can defend is by attacking.
An Leas-Cheann Comhairle
Order, please.
You are a total and utter failure.
An Leas-Cheann Comhairle
Deputy Allen is not in order.
The Minister is a typical barrister and he is good at it.
The Minister should answer the questions he has been asked.
He is legislating without enforcing.
The people want answers.
An Leas-Cheann Comhairle
Order, please.
To be told by that Deputy that—
"That Deputy" represents a—
—I am a failure is seriously wounding because I know he speaks from experience.
The Minister will have much more experience of failure.
I have been in this House for longer than you and I will not take lectures from you.
An Leas-Cheann Comhairle
Order, please.
I want to say—
You left people dead on the streets of Cork and you would not take action.
The Minister was in a different party at the time.
An Leas-Cheann Comhairle
Order, please.
As far as I am concerned, I—
You left people to die on the streets of Cork and you would not take action.
—commenced dealing with this issue—
You would not even come into this House. You stayed in the bar rather than coming in.
An Leas-Cheann Comhairle
Order, please.
That was your contribution. You stayed in the bar.
An Leas-Cheann Comhairle
Deputy Allen, please resume your seat.
You should have been over there answering questions. Do not lecture us.
An Leas-Cheann Comhairle
Order now, please.
Do not lecture us.
It is a pity that the Minister did not stay in the bar.
An Leas-Cheann Comhairle
The Minister, please, without interruption.
Is it a pity that I did not stay in Deputy McCormack's party?
No.
Now we hear it.
No, that is not what he was saying.
Is the IDS factor starting to come out?
An Leas-Cheann Comhairle
The Minister should confine his comments to the business.
We have to unite – not divide – in this House. I started this session this afternoon by offering a united and joint approach to this issue. I have heard nothing but petty point-scoring from a bankrupt Opposition since I stood up.
The Minister is incompetent.
Can I point out to the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform that the Labour Party's general election manifesto committed it to providing extra Garda resources if it were to get into Government?
It did not.
We did not get into Government, unfortunately. The Government has not delivered on its promise of 2,000 extra gardaí.
The Labour Party did not say that.
We did – it is written down in black and white. I can show it to the Minister later. I want to use my time to express the concerns of my constituents who are living in fear. Does the Minister know what it is like to live in a community, such as parts of Limerick at the moment, where Garda resources are inadequate? Unfortunately, the message went out from the Central Criminal Court yesterday that the forces of law and order in the State cannot address the serious violence that exists in certain communities. People will go to bed tonight in a state of fear, without having received any reassurance from the Minister's comments today. I welcome the further €2 million that is to be provided.
My party leader quoted Mr. Paul Browne, a representative of the Garda in Limerick, earlier today. I would like to quote more of what he had to say. He said, "There are days in Limerick city when there are no members available to go out on the beat". It is true that serious crimes are being investigated – we acknowledge the very good work of the Garda in that regard – but Mr. Browne said, "This is happening to the detriment of normal policing". He claimed that the manpower levels and financial supports provided to the Garda in Limerick are "dire". This is an accurate reflection of the situation on the ground in Limerick.
The Taoiseach referred earlier to the extra resources that were put in, but Operation Oileán ended many months ago. Some of the young men who did not give evidence yesterday live in communities that are bereft of policing. I want to know what the Minister will do about it. Will he allocate extra policing resources to the city of Limerick now? The resources are needed now because certain communities are living in fear. The police are doing their work in terms of solving crime, but they cannot prevent crime and protect ordinary citizens from crime. My constituents want the Minister to give answers to these crucial questions.
When will the Minister provide funds for the reconstruction of Mary Street Garda station, which is in the heart of the one of the communities that is most affected by these problems? The Minister of State, Deputy O'Dea, promised that the Garda station would be rebuilt before the last general election and the one before it. When I telephoned the Garda station today, I was told by an answering machine to telephone Henry Street Garda station. This broken promise is not good enough. Promises have been broken in respect of the policing of the city of Limerick, because 2,000 extra gardaí were promised. I am not interested in political point-scoring; I am interested in getting gardaí to police my city. I want to know when the Minister intends to do it.
Deputies
Hear, hear.
I wish to correct the record. The Labour Party promised extra community gardaí. It criticised the proposal to recruit extra gardaí.
Will the Minister answer my questions?
The Deputy quoted the Labour Party's manifesto at me.
The Minister is trying to score political points.
If anyone looks at the manifesto, not only will they find that the recruitment of extra gardaí was not proposed, but—
Do community gardaí not count as gardaí?
—also that the Labour Party's spokesman at the time opposed such a policy when it was put forward by the Government. Let us be clear about the facts and not engage in wishful thinking.
On the resources available in Limerick, I agree with Deputy O'Sullivan that those living in com munities that are vulnerable to the actions of lawless, feuding gangs, as is the case in a minority of the communities in Limerick, are entitled to look to the State for protection and to receive it. This is why I have gone to Limerick, spoken to the local chief superintendent and promised him any resources he considers reasonably necessary. I have kept in constant touch with the Garda Commissioner regarding the problems in Limerick and am confident that he has an appreciation of the manpower needs that exist there.
Deputy Shortall asked me what I intend to do. I have just indicated that the Garda Commissioner moves his forces around the country to where the threat is greatest. However, in so far as it has been suggested that the Garda is under-resourced, I have made available a special fund of €2 million to be expended between now and 31 December to combat gang related crime. If the Deputy wants an answer, that is it.
Will the resources be made available in Limerick?
Yes. Substantial extra resources will be sent to Limerick and Deputy Shortall will see the outcome of this in the coming weeks because the Commissioner is determined that the recent challenge to the rule of law be faced down emphatically.
The Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform was strongly supportive of the Judiciary's decision to bring the Central Criminal Court to Limerick so its citizens could see at close hand and participate in the administration of justice in their city. It was a successful endeavour until relatively recently. It was to ensure that gardaí involved in major cases would not be dragged up to Dublin unnecessarily for the duration of trials and that the series of very serious prosecutions that arose in the Limerick area would not, ironically, suck police resources out of the Limerick area. I now have to confer with the presidents of the respective courts and the prosecuting authorities as to whether this initiative can be sustained and improved because I do not want to suck out gardaí from Limerick to act as supporting witnesses in trials being held at some distance from that city.
The Commissioner, to whom I spoke today, is emphatic that this challenge must and will be faced down and that every effort will be made to confront what has happened recently. I am not directing public prosecutions or seeking to encroach on anybody's territory but if there is a retrial in the case in question, it may well be that, with a different legal approach, the testimony that was unavailable might be ruled to be available. There may well be prosecutions, if there is evidence to support them, of persons who have suffered a loss of memory or an unwillingness to testify. Unless there is a reasonable excuse for this loss of memory, it amounts to contempt of court. Furthermore, if the unwillingness to testify occurs with improper intent, it amounts to an attempt to pervert the course of justice. Moreover, wider conspiracy charges could be brought if it were shown to have been engaged in on a concerted basis. Members should note that this story is not over. The trial and the offence to which it is related is not just dead history. I have no doubt that the prosecuting authority will use every endeavour to ensure justice is not, and does not, appear to be cheated.
On the Minister's point about Fine Gael having said something ridiculous before the last local elections, there is nothing more ridiculous than promising 2,000 extra gardaí while knowing that Templemore does not have the capacity to accommodate them.
The Minster used the expression "exaggerated outrage". I hope he is aware the only outrage that exists is over his comments about winning the war on crime. He should use this expression when speaking to Eric Leamy's parents.
In the past five years, 50 people have been killed in gangland murders, 17 of whom were killed this year. Charges have been brought in only two cases. I agree with the Minister's statement that gardaí are being effective in many cases. However, the Garda is not working effectively with regard to organised criminal gangs. The Minister has done nothing to assure the House or the citizens of Limerick or Dublin that there will be any improvement. He has not explained how witnesses will be protected. He has not explained how gardaí will be bolstered on the ground when dealing with the many violent, well-armed criminal gangs. The only thing he has come up with is a sum of €2 million, which works out at about €400,000 per year over the past five years. Is this the sop for all those killed over the past five years in gangland murders?
The Minister has done nothing. He contradicted the new Garda Commissioner, Noel Conroy, who attended the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Justice, Equality, Defence and Women's Rights and said he did not have the resources he needed. The Minister is frequently contradicting what the gardaí are saying on the ground in Limerick, and he is playing the hard man when it comes to this issue. He is saying he will give more money to the Commissioner if he needs it but that he will not do it yet.
I have been raising the issue of the organised crime unit for the past 16 months. The Garda representatives and the Garda want this and realise it is the only effective method for dealing with well-armed criminals and organised gangs. The Minister needs to tell the House and the citizens in Limerick how he will protect the witnesses and potential jurors in the trials of members of such gangs. He has not done so.
An Leas-Cheann Comhairle
I have to remind the Deputy that we are taking supplementary questions.
Circumstances have worsened. The Minister is right in suggesting that one cannot throw money at this problem and expect it to go away. However, he is not dealing with the issue of fear and intimidation on the ground in Limerick. The gardaí are not able to deal with this at present. The Minister has told the House nothing about what the Government will do to remedy the problem. He must do so. Throwing €2 million at a problem that involves 50 or 60 organised criminal gangs is absurd.
An Leas-Cheann Comhairle
I remind the House that this is not a debate as such and that Members are being called upon to put supplementary questions.
To say that €2 million, to be spent over two months, is a derisory sum, as Deputy Deasy has implied, shows how little he knows about the funding of our policing system. It is a very substantial sum and will make a very substantial difference.
I agree with Deputy Deasy that it is not simply a question of money or of making bigger and bigger cheques available to the Garda Síochána every year. Other issues pertaining to organisation and the deployment of resources are equally important in obtaining the best outcome in terms of the huge amount of resources being put into the fight against crime.
Deputy Deasy asked what I proposed to do to protect jurors. Protection was, I understand, offered to one individual in the case in question but was not sought by any of the individuals involved. In the circumstances of the case, protection was not believed to be the issue. The Deputy's statement that this particular circumstance would have been changed by offering protection rests on a false assumption.
I accept, however, the Deputy's point regarding the protection of jurors and the need for persons asked to serve on jury panels to have a sense of security. They must be offered a much greater sense of security if they are to serve in circumstances in which they feel unsafe or under greater pressure than is normal for service on a jury. I am examining ways in which to give jurors a new sense of protection. I believe in juror trial. The two main Opposition parties take different views on this issue, with one in favour of greater use of the Special Criminal Court while the other opposes such a response. There are differences of opinion in every party in the House on these kinds of issue.
The rule of law has survived for centuries and has values built into it. Jury trial, in particular, is of immense value. Rather than responding immediately to a particular case in a knee-jerk fashion by removing an entire category of case from juries, we should use our collective intelligence to strengthen jury trial and guarantee jurors the sense of security they have elsewhere. Jurors in the United States, for instance, are treated much more carefully than here by the system of justice. We are a little casual in this respect in that jurors are told to go home at the end of a day's proceedings and are gathered together, for example in a hotel, only when they are retiring to consider their verdict. This is an odd way of going about our business. There may, therefore, be a good argument for providing some degree of anonymity to give people serving on juries an adequate sense of security.
The Deputy asked what I will do for the ordinary people of Limerick who want a sense of protection. The Garda Commissioner is sending additional manpower to the city and also has more than adequate financial resources to deal with the circumstances which will pertain between now and the end of December. Incidentally, not all these resources will be expended in Limerick.
The fundamental issue to which we must return is that our society cannot devour all of its values in order to make instant responses to particular challenges. Whatever we do must be thought out, balanced and proportionate. Now is not the time for a back of a beer mat kind of approach to change. Deputy Deasy's proposal over the weekend to arm more gardaí would have to be considered carefully because one of the factors that dictates the quality of life in this society is that the Garda Síochána remains an unarmed force. While gardaí obviously need firearms in certain circumstances, a decision to arm the force much more extensively than is currently the case should not be taken lightly. It would need to be clearly demonstrated that such a measure would have a major effect in preventing what happened in the Central Criminal Court yesterday. This would have to be cogently proved to me before I would go down that route.
How many bodies does the Minister need?
It is not a question of making glib remarks because arming gardaí—
The Minister should ask a member of the Garda Síochána to go into some of our estates because they will not do it.
It has not been suggested that gardaí have been standing around unarmed and unable to interfere in murders. It is easy for the Deputy to make the glib response that one should arm more gardaí—
The Minister does not know what is happening on the ground.
—and then to ask a Minister who knows a great deal about the system how many more bodies he needs.
The Minister does not know a great deal about the system.
The Deputy's approach is theatrical.
The Minister should ask members of the Garda Síochána.
The Deputy is not in a studio now. His remark about the number of bodies I need shows a glib, cavalier and disdainful approach to what is being done.
I am not making anything up, people are dead.
The Minister is not in the Four Courts.
It is 6.05 p.m. and the Garda station in Mayorstone closed five minutes ago as it does on every week night. The station serves 40% of Limerick, which indicates that a lack of resources is the problem. Earlier I asked the Minister to reassure the House that sufficient technical, human and financial resources would be provided to address the disturbing incidence of gangland killings. While I appreciate the allocation of €2 million, as a proportion of the annual budget of €1 billion it is an insignificant 0.2%. Even if it provides an increase in the level of overtime in the coming months, it remains a drop in the ocean.
I direct the Minister's attention to this month's issue of the Garda Review which addresses the issue of technical resources. Page 37 shows a photograph of gardaí reviewing video evidence in a converted, unheated garage in Henry Street in Limerick. These are the conditions under which members of the Garda Síochána are operating in the city. The same page states that there are not enough gardaí in Limerick to cope and that the fear gripping the local population has a direct impact on intelligence because people are afraid to talk to local gardaí. These are not the comments of an uninformed individual, but members of the Garda Síochána speaking through the pages of a magazine that serves them. They say they are overstretched, overcrowded and under-resourced, which are serious remarks.
On a more serious level, on 28 February last, the Minister's colleague, the Minister of State, Deputy O'Dea, publicly described as a myth the claim that there is a direct correlation between crime levels and the resources provided by the Government. I ask the Minister to confer with his colleague and discuss whether resources can help – the Green Party believes they can. It is an insult to members of the Garda Síochána to suggest there is no link between Garda resources and crime. In some areas, for instance, the local gardaí are unable to supply the services the public requires.
The Green Party calls on the Government to recruit additional gardaí and reform the force to ensure the necessary technical, financial and human resources are made available in order that we can tackle crime and, on a fundamental level, ensure gardaí can work overtime, which they are currently unable to do. According to the Garda Review, members of the force may not work overtime within 48 hours of a murder being committed. This is an immediate difficulty faced by gardaí.
While I appreciate the Minister's commitment to allocate an additional €2 million funding this year, it is a drop in the ocean. I ask him to raise the issue of resources with his ministerial colleague and convince him that resources are part of the fight against crime.
The Minister of State would not suggest that the question of resourcing of the Garda Síochána has no connection with the level of crime in a community. It is the case that, of themselves, resources without organisational focus are not the answer. We have seen that in the health system and in a number of other areas of Government expenditure. The mere application of resources without organisational focus is sometimes ineffectual and wasteful.
The amount of resources the Garda Síochána receives, and will continue to receive while I am Minister, has been substantially increased each year. The Garda Síochána requires resourcing and my Cabinet colleagues, as distinct from the Minister of State, Deputy O'Dea, are well aware of the need for increased resources. It is not up to me to pre-empt the Estimates process but the Deputy can take it that it will be abundantly clear in a number of weeks that I have fought the battle he suggests for adequate resourcing of the Garda Síochána. Real resources for the Garda will climb to a record high.
I accept the proposition that with a growing population, increasing urbanisation and a change in values, this country will need more gardaí. Even to maintain the present ratio of gardaí to the population will require annual expansion of the force. That must be borne in mind. However, there are many areas, due to one consideration or another, where the efforts of the Garda Síochána are less productive than they might otherwise be. Any static post which is manned 24 hours a day will require 5.2 gardaí to carry out that function when rest, leave and holidays are taken into account. There are also many activities carried out by the gardaí which could be carried out by others. These include the financial aspects of firearms licensing, the points system for motorists and setting up speeding cameras. One does not have to be a garda to put a camera on a road or to collect the film. Many functions could be carried out by others.
I have impressed on the commissioner, and he fully agrees with me on this issue, that his task is to mobilise and refocus the resources of the Garda Síochána to get maximum effect from them in terms of both manpower and finance. Significant progress is being made on that. The new systems of financial control within the Garda Síochána will oblige local and regional commanders, even down to the level of sergeant, to make rational choices about what they do with the resources committed to their command to produce the optimal result for the community. There was a time when the Garda Síochána was a static, stratified force in which change did not come easily and in which resources trickled down from the top more or less to where they fell. Now, different financial planning and controls are in place. When the Garda Commissioner becomes the Accounting Officer for the force there will be, for the first time, a degree of financial autonomy in the application of resources within the Garda, which will make it clear that the person with operational control can also direct the cash in the direction in which he or she wants to produce results.
I believe the war against crime is being won. The increase over the years 2001 and 2002, for example, has been curtailed—
The Minister is the only one who believes it.
Many people in my constituency do not believe it.
It is true, as Deputy O'Sullivan points out, that it is not being won everywhere—
There are many areas in which it is not being won.
—and that the results are uneven across the country. It is equally true, and the Taoiseach spoke about this manifestation earlier, that we have seen the emergence of a new, ruthless, young, amoral, group of people who are willing to kill others at the drop of a hat.
They have been around for years.
They have not been around for years. This is what amuses me about Deputy Deasy, the sheer, crass inconsistency of his points. He said earlier that the situation had got substantially worse in the last two years but now he says it has been around for years.
Crass inconsistency is not the preserve of this side of the House.
An Leas-Cheann Comhairle
The Minister without interruption.
We have to be consistent in what we say in the House. Earlier the Deputy said that a crisis had emerged in which a new generation of gangs had come to the fore but now we are being told the opposite—
Fifty people dead in five years.
I understood the Deputy's point was that this situation was getting worse and out of control. My point is that the new generation of people, who emerged to replace the old crime lords, is more savage than what we have been used to.
That is a cop out.
It is not a cop out; it is a statement of fact.
It is a cop out, an excuse.
The Deputy does not like confronting facts but I have made a statement of fact. It is not an excuse. As the Commissioner told a committee of this House, he faces a group of people who have created a world of their own in which nobody is willing to testify because of a climate of fear. That is what they have done. We have reached the point where on television last night we saw a victim of crime saying that he would go and have a pint with the people who tried to blow his head off—
He is one of the biggest criminals around.
—rather than go to the police, presumably, and identify these people.
He is a drug dealer.
The gardaí need public co-operation in fighting crime. They need to break open these gangs. They need breaks and insider information. They have plenty of technical resources at their disposal for surveillance purposes and so forth to break into the gangs. Their problem is that they need to get lucky on certain occasions.
The Minister could help their luck a little.
I believe the Garda Síochána is a highly professional force and that it will get lucky. I also believe that these people who have created the impression that they shoot the head off whoever they wish will become unlucky quite soon. Throughout this afternoon's proceedings there has been an implicit suggestion in many of the contributions that the gardaí are not actively pursuing—
No.
Allow me to finish my sentence. The suggestion is that they are not actively pursuing real leads—
We are saying the Minister is not actively pursuing them, not the gardaí.
—whereas the opposite is the case. They have clear pictures of a number of offences and now they are doing the tedious and hard work of amassing the evidence. It is not a matter of—
Will the Minister give way?
I will not.
An Leas-Cheann Comhairle
There is no provision for giving way during Private Notice Questions.
Will the Minister answer a question? Is the Minister aware of the intimidation of witnesses at a railway station?
I was aware of that incident as soon as the Deputy was aware of it.
What did the Minister do about it?
An Leas-Cheann Comhairle
Order. We cannot proceed on this basis.
I believe the Deputy will be embarrassed when he finds out who was assaulted and by whom. He does not know the full facts.
An Leas-Cheann Comhairle
A number of Deputies wish to ask questions. I remind them that they may put supplementary questions to the Minister, not make statements.
On 29 November 2002, Mr. Brian Fitzgerald, the security manager of a nightclub was killed because he would not allow drugs into the club. It was one of the most dastardly crimes that has ever occurred in Limerick and there is extreme upset in the city that the crime has not yet been solved. Can the Minister throw any light on the measures being taken to bring to justice those who committed the crime?
I understand there have been relatively recent developments in that investigation and I do not propose to say anything further.
The Minister quoted the judge as stating yesterday that he had never before encountered the likes of this. Does the Minister accept, however, that the intimidation of witnesses is not new? Indeed, this morning on RTE, a crime journalist listed a series of serious prosecutions against gang crime in Dublin that had to be dropped as a result of such intimidation. While yesterday's development was dramatic, this is a serious problem that has not been addressed and there does not appear to be any strategy in place to address it. That is one of the reasons organised crime is not being dealt with effectively.
Prior to the murder of Veronica Guerin there was a series of unsolved gangland murders and a similar pattern seems to have emerged more recently. In recent months, efforts have been made to intimidate the crime reporter, Mr. Paul Williams of the Sunday World, whose property has been attacked and family intimidated. There is a real danger that when people get away with killing gangland figures at will, and there is no adequate response to deal with them, they will turn their guns on others, including journalists, politicians and gardaí. It is not a matter, therefore, of waiting to be lucky, it is a matter of having a strategy in place to deal with these people, although that does not appear to be the case.
The primary response to the murder of Veronica Guerin was the establishment of the Criminal Assets Bureau. Although it could go after all criminal assets, the bureau's focus was supposed to be gangland criminals but it has long since lost that focus. It is the Minister's responsibility to refocus it. These gangs would not be operating if they could not accumulate assets. If the Criminal Assets Bureau was regionalised or, at least, refocused against gangland criminals we might begin to get to grips with such crime that really is spreading. I do not want to make any political points but there is no doubt that in Dublin alone the number of gangs involved in the drugs scene has quadrupled in recent years.
I appreciate the Deputy's point – it is true that the intimidation of witnesses did not start yesterday or last week in the Central Criminal Court. Many cases that could be brought are not because people are reluctant to testify and we do not need a radio station to remind us of some cases involving the intimidation of witnesses. It is not an entirely new phenomenon and the law is very strong regarding the intimidation of witnesses. Witnesses who are afraid to testify on the main issue are frequently afraid to testify against their intimidators as well, so there is a difficulty there.
As the Deputy may know, under the 1984 Act statements in a book of evidence contain a solemn declaration that the person has made them in the knowledge that everything in them is true. If anything has been stated in them that is either untrue or that the person does not believe to be true, and it is used in evidence against any other person, the person who made the statement will be guilty of an offence. What is peculiar about what happened yesterday is that, having committed themselves to a particular account in statements included in a book of evidence, which were unambiguous in their meaning, such a number of people should, in respect of the same transaction, suddenly resile from their statements, effectively on the floor of a court. That is unusual. Mr. Justice Carney was correct in saying that, although there has been the odd, isolated incident involving a key witness being intimidated, the notion of mass resiling from statements is new and is a challenge to the public's perception of the administration of justice. There is no doubt about that.
It seems to me that our judge-made law in respect of the value of the previous statement, is not necessarily the only approach to that issue. If we were to follow the Canadian route, somebody who had made a statement in solemn circumstances, such as the ones I have just outlined, would not be in a position to resile from that statement in the witness box and simply have it put in the court wastepaper basket, as if it meant nothing. The Canadian Supreme Court has stated that the law against hearsay evidence merely requires that the evidence itself should be capable of being tested in court and that the maker should be subject to cross-examination. I do not want to become too enthusiastic for this without looking at possible demerits to such a change but it seems to me that the Canadian system has a lot going for it. Under that system, people would not be able simply to junk a statement they had made and testify differently, or fail to testify, or effectively laugh at the procedure and disown their previous statement. If we changed the law along those lines, either by judicial decision or by legislation, we would go a long way towards making sure that what happened in the Central Criminal Court would not recur. There is no foolproof system but at the very least somebody who thought he or she could simply ask witnesses to become blank of memory, notwithstanding the fact that they had committed themselves to a serious written accusation, would no longer feel confident that those serious prior accusations would stand for nothing in the judicial process. That is something we will have to consider carefully to see whether in the courts or through legislation that principle should not be brought into law.
I believe the Deputy's other point regarding the proliferation of gangs to be true. That proliferation may, in fact, stem as an ironic consequence of the decapitation of the major underworld figures in the past who were forces to be reckoned with. There was a fragmentation of gangs, which has had its own negative side-effect in that there has been a proliferation of gangs, which presents the Garda Síochána with more difficulty in keeping tabs on them. In nearly all of these cases there is a close relationship between the activities of such gangs and drug trading, although there are obviously organised crimes that have nothing to do with drugs.
While this is outside my province and I am not in a position to lay down administrative practice on it, it seems that the practice of considering drug dealing as a summary offence, which means describing it in law as a minor offence, can only be confined to the most minimalist cases of supplying, say, cannabis in a social context. Deputy Deasy raised this point in weekend interviews. I believe that as a matter of prosecution policy – I will confer with the Commissioner on this because I cannot influence the Director of Public Prosecutions either directly or indirectly – the treatment of drug dealing as a minor offence, where it happens albeit on a small commercial scale, must be challenged or at least rethought. Minor penalties for such activity send out all the wrong signals. Deputy Deasy suggested a minimum three-month sentence. That begs the question as to why such offences are described in the District Court as minor offences.
Another point I want to make, although I do not want to trample on anyone else's domain because we must be mindful of the separation of powers, is that this Parliament has laid down that significant drug dealing on a commercial scale attracts a minimum ten-year sentence. That was the will of this Parliament and it is the law. Unless and until that law is declared to be unconstitutional, it binds everyone from the citizen to the policeman, the legislator and the judge. There is some reason to believe that the full effect of that provision is not being used in sentencing policy in the State. We must address that because it is either constitutional or it is not. It cannot be in a limbo state of being judicially disapproved, while being on the Statute Book. It is either right or wrong. However, it was the will of this Parliament when it was put in place and it should be implemented unless and until someone challenges it and says it should not be part of the statute law of this country and that it is inconsistent with the Constitution.
I asked two questions about the Criminal Assets Bureau and gangland murders.
As regards the Criminal Assets Bureau, the Deputy suggested it should be regionalised.
Refocused.
Refocused. I do not accept the Deputy's assertion that it is not addressing its attention to the areas the Deputy mentioned. Without referring to individual cases, which I should not do, I had a recent example of a serious offence being committed where it was clear the Criminal Assets Bureau was active in a drug dealing context. The Deputy probably knows what I am talking about, but I do not want to say anything more definite. If the Deputy's point is that it is going after serious money, corruption cases and people who fail to pay taxes, while ignoring organised crime, that is not my impression. However, I will confer with the Commissioner and with the head of the Criminal Assets Bureau to see if there is substance in the Deputy's point. I will do whatever I can to remedy that if that is the case. However, I do not accept at face value the Deputy's suggestion that the Criminal Assets Bureau has lost its way.
As regards gangland murders, the Deputy cited what happened to Veronica Guerin and the intimidation of other people who report criminal issues in our society. Nothing is more profoundly repugnant to democracy than the fact that those involved in crime not only turn their weapons on people within their trade, but that they also try to prevent people from knowing what they are doing by trying to influence what is and is not printed in the newspapers. I take that threat seriously.
As regards gangland murder victims, it is not a matter of getting lucky. One may have a clear picture of what happened in a particular case, but it can be difficult to amass admissible evidence. I will give the House an example. One can have a clear picture built up from intelligence that A was murdered by B in such a place with a firearm. Unfortunately, one cannot produce the firearm to link B to it. One cannot link B at that stage to any firearm by conventional forensic methods. What one needs in such circumstances is intelligence which is not simply reliable, but is also admissible when it is converted into testimony. That is where luck sometimes plays a part. One can have a clear picture of what happened, but no admissible evidence due to intimidation, secrecy or the destruction of evidence. Time goes by and sometimes people think progress is not being made on certain offences, but then suddenly a break comes. I ask the House not to form the conclusion that because the more recent murders have not resulted in immediate prosecutions, there is not an active ongoing investigation and campaign to put together admissible evidence to back up the picture the gardaí have already formed.
The point the Commissioner made to a committee of this House is crucial; it is one thing to know who has committed a crime, but it is a different thing to prove it. As newspapers know in the context of the libel laws, it is one thing to know that something is the case, but it is a different thing to produce a witness in court with admissible evidence to prove the proposition beyond reasonable doubt. That is part of the battle the gardaí must constantly wage. It is not simply a case of gathering intelligence, penetrating the gangs or engaging in electronic and other surveillance to find out what is happening, but of producing clear evidence which will satisfy a jury that the person is guilty of the crime of which he or she is accused. I referred earlier to being lucky. Sometimes what appears to be a forlorn effort to amass admissible evidence suddenly comes up right. It is hard police work which normally results in that, but sometimes it is an unexpected bonus from someone.
There have been 17 cases this year, but charges are pending in only two of them.
I want to speak.
An Leas-Cheann Comhairle
Order, please. We are an hour and a half on this question. I will not allow any more questions. The Minister is replying.
Deputy Deasy constantly uses that phrase. It does not help to belittle the efforts of gardaí in that way and it is pointless to attribute the blame to me.
I am not belittling their efforts.
The Deputy is belittling them.
They have been lucky twice in 17 cases.
The gardaí have a clear picture in those two cases of what has happened and who is to blame. They are always campaigning to put together admissible evidence so that the picture of which they are aware is produced as evidence in court. There is no point in telling me that there have been prosecutions in only two cases out of 17.
There have not been any prosecutions. There are only charges pending.
An Leas-Cheann Comhairle
Order, please. We must conclude.
The Deputy should be aware that one does not charge someone because one thinks he or she is guilty. A person can only be charged when one has a case which will stand up in court. There is no point knowing that someone did it and charging him or her so Deputy Deasy cannot make that point in the Dáil because charges are pending. That is not the way the world works.
I want to speak. I am sure the Minister would not like to mislead the House.
An Leas-Cheann Comhairle
We must conclude. The Minister is concluding.
People are only charged with offences when a sufficient corpus of admissible evidence is in existence which will stand up in court. Therefore, when the Deputy keeps repeating that two out of 17 cases have resulted in charges, that does not mean that in 15 out of 17 cases gardaí do not have any idea of what has happened or are not moving towards the goal of producing an admissible case in court.
I am sure the Minister would like to withdraw his remark that Fine Gael opposed the recruitment of 2,000 extra gardaí.
The Deputy should read Mr. Shatter's letter.
The mere recruitment of additional gardaí will not solve the problem of street violence.
The Deputy should read the whole letter.
I have read the whole letter.
The Minister is wrong.
He also spoke about recycling the promises made in 1997 and how a certain security editor gave political credence to them. The Minister is very selective.