Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 25 Nov 2003

Vol. 575 No. 3

Other Questions. - Garda Equipment.

Emmet Stagg

Question:

56 Mr. Stagg asked the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform the progress made to date with regard to the installation of video recording equipment in Garda stations; the number of stations in which the equipment has been installed; the number which have no such equipment; the overall number of interview rooms in Garda stations; the number in which equipment has been installed; the number which will have it when the current programme is completed; the number which will have no such equipment; his views on whether it is desirable that all interview rooms should have such equipment; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [28264/03]

Mr. McDowell

The Criminal Justice Act 1984 (Electronic Recording of Interviews) Regulations 1997 provides for the recording of interviews in respect of suspects who are detained in custody. In 1999, the Government decided to introduce an audio-video system for the recording of such interviews and the number of stations and rooms now fitted out with the specialised equipment within these stations is such as to provide broad nationwide coverage. To date, 235 interview rooms in 131 stations have been fitted out and of these, all but a handful are in use. The small number of rooms where equipment remains to be installed will be operational as soon as practicable.

There are 703 Garda stations throughout the State – Deputy Naughten referred to some of them earlier. Many of these are rural stations and are not equipped to accommodate the holding of prisoners or their interrogation and are open for a set number of hours per day, week or month. It was never the intention, nor is it considered necessary, that all 703 Garda stations should have audio-visual facilities installed or that every interview room in the stations be fitted out with the system. Indeed, I am advised by the Garda authorities that the number of rooms and stations fitted out provides the nationwide coverage envisaged by the Government decision. The installation of the equipment is now virtually complete.

Mr. Costello

The Minister will have noted a particular case before the courts last week, the substance of which was never heard because of two to three weeks of legal argument on whether statements taken in 1998 by the Garda were admissible. The statements were not allowed and the case collapsed. A jury had been empanelled and lawyers had been contracted at enormous cost to the State, all of which could have been avoided had the recommendations of the Barra O'Briain report in 1979, a quarter of a century ago, been implemented. We have been remiss in this area. The installation of video recording equipment in interview rooms has taken a long time.

Arising from the Minister's reply, can I take it that we will never again witness the wasting of time, money and alleged breaches of people's rights and that we will have factual records of what transpires when people are in Garda custody rather than reading on a regular basis in the newspapers about what is or is not happening?

Mr. McDowell

The reply which I just gave the Deputy is based on information given to me by the Garda Síochána which believes the country is covered by an adequate network. I agree with Deputy Costello that the circumstances of the case revealed last week were most unsatisfactory. We must remember, as he has conceded, that the offence to which that case related was apparently committed before commencement of the Government programme in 1999 and that the equipment in question was not available at that time.

The period of delay between the committing of the offence and the trial – I might as well speak on this matter before somebody raises it – is another matter of grave concern to those studying the figures. The latest figures from the Garda Síochána, dating from last June, show that 20,271 interviews with suspected persons have been recorded since the introduction of the scheme. The equipment was not used in 1,340 interviews during the same period. That figure breaks down as follows: 891 prisoners objected to having their interviews recorded and in 448 interviews, equipment was not available or was faulty. I do not have the other figure. The number of interviews which did not proceed because of the non-availability of equipment represented 2% of the total. I will keep that matter under review as we proceed. I agree with Deputies that there is no good reason an accused person who is subject to detention under the 1984 Act should not be visually recorded so as to remove all controversy when a jury comes to consider the matter of who is telling the truth and what transpired during an interview.

Written Answers follow Adjournment Debate.