The investigation did result in disciplinary action against a number of gardaí. It is very important to note that under the legal procedures in place, the confidential recipient and, crucially, the Garda Síochána Ombudsman were informed of these matters. The thinking behind the provisions of the 2005 Act was this: the Garda Síochána Ombudsman was to be advised by the Garda Commissioner of complaints received by the confidential recipient so that it could initiate its own investigation in the public interest if it considered it warranted doing so. The fact that this could happen would also act as a form of what might be termed "quality control" in regard to any Garda investigation. The Garda Síochána Ombudsman Commission, GSOC, was informed in June 2010 of the progress of the assistant commissioner's investigation and, shortly afterwards, of the decision by the DPP. While GSOC dealt with a small number of relevant complaints which had been made to it - and which I will deal with in a moment - it does not appear to have felt it necessary to take any further action.
The commission at the time comprised Mr. Dermot Gallagher, Mr. Conor Brady and Ms Carmel Foley. Again, I am voicing no criticism of them as to how they dealt with this matter, but the essential facts are these: the allegations were dealt with under the procedures in place at the time, and the confidential recipient, the DPP and the Garda Síochána Ombudsman Commission fulfilled their statutory roles in regard to them. I doubt that any fair-minded observer would regard these as a set of allegations about which nothing had been done. I doubt that Deputy Martin would have come into the Dáil Chamber in 2009 or 2010 and made such charge against former Minister, Dermot Ahern, and accused him of undermining the administration of justice in the State.
I think it is only fair to note too that while many of the allegations referred to possible shortcomings in Garda investigations, and there were some shortcomings or failures identified, nevertheless a number ultimately resulted in successful prosecutions and convictions. For the sake of completeness, I should mention also that there were complaints from Sergeant McCabe of alleged assault and imprisonment against the assistant commissioner who conducted the investigation. This, in turn, was investigated by a deputy commissioner who submitted a file to the DPP who directed no prosecution.
Of course, I understand that Sergeant McCabe did not accept the outcome of these investigations and that is his right. However, I am sure the House will appreciate that there is no mechanism that can guarantee all complainants will be at all times fully satisfied with the outcome of all investigations. What is important is that there are procedures in place to deal with allegations and, as I have pointed out, the procedures put in place by the previous Government with regard to all of these matters were followed. Over three weeks ago I announced that I intended to introduce reforms to the current statutory provisions and procedures because from my experience of them I had concluded they were deeply flawed. That was before any of the recent controversies arose.
This brings me to the question of contacts between Sergeant McCabe and my Department and, in particular, the allegation that I took no action in regard to correspondence received from him. On 23 January 2012, I received a report from the then Garda confidential recipient, Mr. Oliver Connolly, attaching a letter which had been anonymised but which turned out to be from Sergeant McCabe and which included 12 allegations against a named superintendent, for either direct wrongdoing or not dealing properly with wrongdoing, a complaint against the assistant commissioner for the alleged assault and false imprisonment previously mentioned, and a complaint against the Garda Commissioner for permitting the named superintendent to be on a panel for promotion to chief superintendent in circumstances where the Garda Commissioner knew, or ought to have known of, the alleged wrongdoing of the superintendent. Not only were there accusations of malpractice but also of corruption in that gardaí were generally accused of engaging in falsifying records, erasing official records, erasing reported incidents, destroying and altering official records, covering up serious investigations and “gross dereliction of duty on a massive scale”. In fairness to the rights of everyone involved I want to emphasise that these were - at the time - anonymous allegations and they should not be taken as evidence of anything.
I should explain that reports from the confidential recipient are only forwarded to me where an allegation is made against the Commissioner. I took the letter so seriously that on 24 January, the following day, my Secretary General, at my request, wrote to the Garda Commissioner seeking an urgent report. The Commissioner's detailed response, received by me on 30 January, described the investigations that had been undertaken and the chronology of events and explained that, of the 12 allegations against the superintendent, 11 had already been dealt with as part of the investigation by the assistant commissioner and chief superintendent. In other words, the January 2012 letter from Sergeant McCabe restated these 11 complaints which had already been dealt with under the statutory confidential recipient scheme. The Commissioner also explained that the 12th allegation in the January 2012 letter related to a case of "child pornography and rape of a minor in September, 2007 where the offender was a priest" and which came before the District Court.
The report went on to explain that this investigation centred on offensive and inappropriate behaviour with a 14 year old boy and that it was apparent that the investigation was efficiently and speedily carried out, resulting in the priest being convicted and sentenced to five year concurrent sentences. The assurances I received were essentially to the effect that these matters had been fully investigated in accordance with the law in place at the time. On 7 February, I wrote to the confidential recipient and informed him of the response of the Garda Commissioner.
To support the political charge he levied against me, Deputy Martin saw fit to draw attention to cases involving a serious assault on Mrs. Mary Lynch and the brutal killing of Mrs. Sylvia Roche Kelly, which offences occurred in 2007. I certainly do not wish to add to the trauma and distress which has been caused by these events by having these cases the subject of public attention again, but it is important to set the record straight. In particular, Deputy Martin again raised yesterday in this House the murder of Sylvia Roche Kelly and its impact on all of her family. It would be entirely wrong to leave unchallenged Deputy Martin's inference that nothing has been done to address concerns about the Garda handling of these cases.
The House may be aware that Lorcan Roche Kelly, the bereaved husband of Sylvia Roche Kelly, initiated High Court legal proceedings against the State in February 2009, so the State has been aware of particular issues related to her murder since 2009. This is in addition to the State’s awareness of such issues in the context of the broader investigation into her tragic death and prosecution of the perpetrator. Of course, I do not want to say anything which would in any way prejudice those current High Court proceedings. I do, however, want to extend my sympathy to Lorcan Roche Kelly and to all of the late Sylvia Roche Kelly’s family on their terrible loss in dreadful circumstances. I hope there is some comfort in knowing that the individual responsible is presently serving a term of life imprisonment.
Deputy Martin talked of the need for an independent inquiry into matters that have understandably been raised by Mr. Roche Kelly. In June 2009, he lodged a complaint with the Garda Síochána Ombudsman Commission to the effect that there was neglect of duty on the part of gardaí in Tipperary and Cavan-Monaghan whom he believed failed to liaise properly in order to ensure that the relevant District Court was suitably advised that a person was on bail for other very serious offences when that person appeared before the District Court on another serious charge.
The Garda Síochána Ombudsman Commission initiated an investigation and, in the light of its investigation, subsequently referred the matter to An Garda Síochána on the basis that the matter should be considered as a less serious breach of discipline in regard to two gardaí. A designated superintendent, having investigated the case, decided that there was insufficient evidence to find either member in breach of discipline. While I do not wish to underestimate in any way the seriousness of what happened, the judgment of an independent body, GSOC, was that what was at issue was a less serious breach of discipline and I am advised GSOC did not make any finding under its statutory provisions of Garda misconduct.
I hope Deputy Martin and other Members can accept that GSOC was the appropriate independent body to adjudicate on this matter. In fact, the bereaved husband wrote to the then Minister, Dermot Ahern, in 2009 about this distressing case. In one of his replies, sent through his private secretary, the then Minister expressed his sympathy and explained how a complaint could be made to the Garda Síochána Ombudsman Commission. Like everyone in this House, I share and understand the concerns that have been voiced in regard to this matter, but it seems that Deputy Martin was unaware of the complaint made to GSOC and its determination and I suspect also unaware that Lorcan Roche Kelly had been in correspondence with my predecessor Mr. Dermot Ahern. I am sure that if Deputy Martin had been aware of this, he might have taken a more considered approach to that taken in this House on Thursday last and again yesterday.
I want to extend my deep sympathy also to Mary Lynch, who was the victim of a very serious assault. Subsequent to an individual being charged with that assault, he was charged with a further serious offence and granted bail by the District Court. A serious issue arose as to the adequacy of the information furnished to the District Court by An Garda Síochána at the time bail was granted, while I am advised that the bail application was vigorously opposed. Our courts are independent and such decisions are a matter for them. I do not feel it appropriate that I further address this matter as, while GSOC discontinued a complaint from Mary Lynch - because it was out of time - about aspects of how her case was treated, I understand from what she has said publicly that she currently has another complaint before GSOC and I do not want to say anything that would be regarded as prejudicing the outcome of this complaint. It is, however, clear to me from a complaint properly made by Mary Lynch that there was a failure by An Garda Síochána to inform her of the hearing and determination in the District Court of the criminal prosecution taken against the individual who assaulted her. While the court imposed two concurrent nine month sentences on the individual concerned, she should have had the opportunity to be present in court. I am advised that, prior to my time as Minister, as a result of the failure to advise Mary Lynch to be present in the District Court on the day when a plea of guilty was entered by the defendant in her case and sentence imposed, An Garda Síochána internally addressed this failure.
It is of considerable importance that the victims of crime are kept properly informed of progress made in the investigation and prosecution of their case and I am greatly concerned by any case where there is a failure to keep a victim informed. In this context, when in opposition, I brought forward in both 2002 and 2008, victims' rights Bills to impose a statutory duty on gardaí to inform victims of trial dates. Unfortunately, in 2008 when Deputy Martin was a senior Government Minister, his Government chose to vote down that measure. Such legislation is currently under preparation in my Department and will incorporate within it provisions regarding victims of crime which are now incorporated in an EU directive. I expect that legislation will come before this House in 2015.
I do not intend to go into any detail today about correspondence with Sergeant McCabe about penalty points. This issue has been referred to GSOC and we should let it get on with its work.
I do, however, want to deal with the charge that I misled this House by claiming that Sergeant McCabe had not co-operated with the investigation carried out by Assistant Commissioner John O'Mahoney. I expected that Sergeant McCabe would fully engage as a member of An Garda Síochána with Assistant Commissioner O’Mahoney’s investigation team and that he would be interviewed. These are operational matters in which no Minister for Justice should interfere and, of course, any such interference would be rightly subject to public criticism. I have no interest in continuing contention with Sergeant McCabe about this matter, but the House will appreciate I cannot leave a charge of misleading it stand. I do not think it is disputed, following the furnishing to the O’Mahoney investigation team of formal allegations and documentation, which originated from Sergeant McCabe and former Garda Wilson, that there was no engagement between either Garda member with the investigation team before Assistant Commissioner O'Mahoney completed his report. What is at issue is an interpretation of events which preceded publication of that report.
In what I said to the House, I relied on material which I received detailing the content of a direction given to Sergeant McCabe on a related matter, which included inviting him to participate in the O’Mahoney investigation and the fact that a letter had been sent from an official of my Department in December 2012 which, specifically, advised Sergeant McCabe that any further information which might be helpful to the investigation should be brought by him to the attention of his authorities within the force. This letter is one of a number of letters exchanged by my Department either directly with Sergeant McCabe or with his solicitors. The situation is further complicated by the fact that between the finalisation of the O'Mahoney report and its publication, he declined to take up an offer from Assistant Commissioner O'Mahoney to meet with a member of his investigation team. Had such a meeting taken place and some additional matters arisen of relevance to the investigation, I could have been notified of any amendment required to be made to the report undertaken and its publication could have been delayed.
Clearly there is a difference of views and perception between An Garda Síochána and Sergeant McCabe with regard to this issue. I have explained the basis on which I made my statement and I can take it no further. However, I want to make it clear, because of some public comment that has been made, that there is no basis for the suggestion that the Garda Commissioner in any way misled me on this matter. Nor is there any basis for an allegation that I in any way misled the House. I appreciate that different Members of the House may perceive these matters differently. It is unfortunate that perceptions are coloured on occasion by political differences.
There is one further set of allegations made by Sergeant McCabe which, for completeness, I should mention. On 4 September 2012, solicitors for Sergeant McCabe wrote to me enclosing three booklets of documentation containing multiple allegations of Garda wrongdoing and requesting the establishment of a special inquiry, under section 42 of the Garda Síochána Act 2005. Some of these allegations related to penalty points and there was a cross-over with some of the earlier allegations I have mentioned. The correspondence was marked strictly private and confidential. On 18 October, my office wrote to the solicitors seeking confirmation that they had no objection to the booklets being forwarded to the Garda Commissioner for his observations. Clearly, I could not decide to establish a statutory inquiry without being aware of all the facts. My office also asked the solicitors to forward copies of PULSE records referred to in the documentation which had not been enclosed. When by 22 November no response had been received, a further reminder was sent to the solicitors by my office.
A further reminder was sent by my office on 3 January 2013. I think it is clear that if I was intent on ignoring allegations by Sergeant McCabe, I would not have been so assiduous in trying to elicit responses from his solicitors.
At that stage, the solicitors replied saying that all the information had been provided to the office of the Department of the Taoiseach which had forward it to the Department of Justice and Equality. In turn, my office replied on 11 March 2013, pointing out the documentation provided to the Department of the Taoiseach related to different allegations, and again asked for the condition of confidentiality to be lifted to enable the matter to be pursued. On 1 May 2013, a further letter was received from the solicitors requesting a copy of the O'Mahony report and repeating the assertion that the records had been provided. Again on 22 May 2013, my office replied seeking a waiver of confidentiality. I do not know why the waiver of confidentiality requested was not forthcoming. However, I was properly conscious of the fact Sergeant McCabe had expressed serious concerns about the observance of privacy and confidentiality in relation to other correspondence, and that he would expect that to be respected. What is clear is that I did everything possible to try to move this issue forward, taking into account Sergeant McCabe's position on the matter. I very much welcome the fact that I will be able to provide this documentation to Mr. Sean Guerin SC.
While preserving the confidentiality requested by Sergeant McCabe, some of the issues raised by him revisited some of the matters of relevance to the earlier correspondence with the confidential recipient, and in this context, my Secretary General wrote again to the Garda Commissioner in late December 2012, as Sergeant McCabe had revisited some of these matters and he received a further detailed response from the Garda Commissioner in February 2013. This correspondence will also be provided to Mr. Guerin.
I can only assume that had Deputy Martin been aware of the extent of both my engagement, and my Department officials' engagement, in issues arising from allegations contained in the letter received by me on 23 January 2012, and had he known of the events that had taken place in the preceding years, the charge he made against me would not have been made.
This brings me to the series of decisions which we took in Cabinet yesterday. We did so against the background that the procedures for dealing with both whistleblowers and complaints, which I inherited under the Garda Síochána Act 2005, had not operated in a way which had fully addressed the complex circumstances of this particular case. It was also our considered view that these matters could not be adequately addressed in this Chamber or in an Oireachtas committee. Therefore, what we decided yesterday is designed not just to address this particular set of allegations but to look to the future to avoid this type of situation arising again.
Before this controversy erupted, I had already stated that, as far as I was concerned, the confidential recipient arrangements were not working. The Government approved my proposals yesterday to allow for legislation in tandem with the Protected Disclosures Bill 2013, sponsored by the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform, to allow gardaí to make complaints directly to GSOC. Pending the early enactment of that legislation, we will be appointing an interim confidential recipient. Mr. Sean Guerin SC is undertaking an assessment of issues and allegations from Sergeant McCabe since 2008. He is being asked to report his findings before the Easter recess and to make recommendations. The report will be published immediately, and if he recommends a commission of inquiry, there will be one. The justice committee will have hearings on Garda accountability arrangements and will, in particular, consider the amendments required to be made to the Garda Síochána Act 2005 with regard to the workings of GSOC.
Members opposite maintain that a commission of inquiry is needed immediately. Deputy Martin and others clearly did so without knowing all the facts. It seems among the facts that Deputy Martin did not know was that both Sergeant McCabe and Lorcan Roche Kelly had each written to his former colleague in the previous Government, the former Minister for Justice and Equality, Mr. Dermot Ahern, whom I do not hold at fault in any way. I believe that the approach announced by the Taoiseach yesterday and agreed in Cabinet is the right course initially and there remains the possibility, following on from the consideration given to all these matters in the report by Mr. Sean Guerin, that an independent statutory inquiry may be required. Equally it may not, and I do not wish to prejudge that issue. It is entirely a matter for Mr. Guerin in his conclusions.
My concern is, as always, that the full truth is known. From Deputy Martin’s contribution in this House last Thursday and his dramatic appearance on the plinth last Wednesday, he raised these very important issues as if they were entirely new, had never arisen during his term in the previous Government and had never been addressed either by the confidential recipient, An Garda Síochána or GSOC. He falsely accused me of undermining the administration of justice, a charge which I entirely reject. It has been a central personal commitment of my entire adult life that we have the best system possible to administer justice in the State, and for many years during my period in this House, it was Deputy Martin’s party that obstinately opposed and delayed the implementation of crucial reform and the modernisation of our criminal justice system. A commitment to the rule of law and to the principle that individuals are innocent until proven guilty is a central feature and a proven principle of this democracy which should not be overthrown by any Member of this House seeking political gain.
Of course it is crucial that An Garda Síochána adheres to the highest standards, that public confidence is maintained in the force and that it does not operate under a cloud of suspicion. It is also crucial that there is public confidence in our independent oversight structure designed to investigate allegations of Garda wrongdoing. That is why, over three weeks ago and prior to any of the controversies, I announced my intention to abolish the office of the confidential recipient and to reform the Garda Síochána Act 2005 in respect of provisions applicable to GSOC. I thank my Cabinet colleagues for their support for these crucial reforms which were a priority previous to the events of the last two weeks.
I hope that the processes we have put in place will deal effectively with any wrongdoing, but also avoid clouds of suspicion being allowed linger unfairly. I look forward to the report of Mr. Sean Guerin and, like my colleagues in Government, I am fully committed to our taking any action necessary on foot of that report.
