I raised this topic because of the great dissatisfaction which has been expressed to me by various groups involved in civil liberties and by members of the Garda Complaints Board informally about the delay in processing complaints to the Garda Complaints Board. What I say here should not in any way be taken by the Minister or by the House to denigrate the Garda Síochána or the work they have been doing over the last 20 years since this Garda Complaints Board has obviously become necessary, although it has only been initiated in the last four or five years. It was in the seventies and eighties, but specifically in the seventies, that some activities of the Garda Síochána in particular caused public concern and necessitated the need for an inquiry into the activities of certain small elements of the Garda. What was necessary was that a complaints board be set up, which was both independent of the Garda and was as inexpensive as possible and that produced the results of complaints as speedily as possible.
The Government in 1986 responded to this need by introducing a Garda Complaints Act, which included two boards, the Garda Complaints Board and the Garda Complaints Appeal Board. This Act was linked to the 1984 Criminal Justice Act which gave additional powers to the Garda. The Garda Complaints Act, 1986, was directly linked to the Criminal Justice Act, 1984, in that the additional powers that were being given to the Garda in 1984 under the Criminal Justice Act, which caused such controversy, were directly linked to the setting up of the Garda Complaints Board. One of them could not come into effect without the other. This was absolutely necessary in order that the Government and the Garda should retain public confidence. I raise this question with the Minister in the spirit that the Garda should retain the confidence of the public. The process of this tribunal which is so badly delayed is reducing the confidence of the public in their civil liberties, and in the Garda as well. These delays give rise to suspicion — and wrongly give rise to suspicion — that the Garda are in some sense delaying the complaints and possibly not investigating things as promptly as might be necessary.
One of the drawbacks of the independence of the board was that the Garda were to investigate the issues and the complaints. That was fairly well answered by the fact that the Garda were always subject to the supervision of the board. The board, if it did not like what the Garda reported, could send them back to investigate further. The system that was set up in 1986 was adequate, and was, as my memory recollects, welcomed by all sides of the House in a fairly non-contentious way — which is rare these days in the Seanad — in a non-contentious Chamber. It was the same in the other House. This system, had it been operated properly, would have worked. It was a safeguard which was greeted with enthusiasm by various civil liberties groups, but what has happened unfortunately since then, partly because this board were set up simultaneously with the cuts in public expenditure, is that the resources for the operation of this board were inadequate for them to fulfil their statutory duties. It is an unfortunate coincidence for the members of this board and for the complainants that they coincided with the cuts in public expenditure. As a result, the board and many civil liberties groups feel that the board do not have enough resources. The danger for a board of this sort is that if they do not have enough resources and they have too many complaints — which they have — they will either become a rubber stamp or the delay in the complaints will be totally unacceptable and people will not get justice.
I think I am right in saying that this board have gone out of their way not to be a rubber stamp and they have gone out of their way not just to process these complaints in such a way that they are disregarded or dealt with in a very short time. If there is any fault with the board it is simply that they have paid too much attention to the complaints and they have been too conscientious, if that is possible. One of the reasons I bring this up today — and I will be interested to hear what the Minister has to say — is that when the Garda Complaints Act was introduced it was anticipated by the Minister for Justice at the time that there would only be 400 complaints per annum. In the first year there were 1,000 complaints and in the second year there were 950. The allocation of funds by the Minister for Justice at the time was on the basis of 40 per cent only of the number of complaints that have actually been sent to the Garda Complaints Board. The allocation of funds was based on something which was far smaller than the reality. That is the first reason it is necessary for the Minister to look at this again and to give the board more money to operate properly. The board have informed the Minister for Justice about this on many occasions and the response they received has been totally and utterly inadequate.
At the end of 1988-89 the average complaint was taking 14 months to investigate. That is a ridiculous delay, which is unacceptable not only to the complainant but to the gardaí who are involved. As a result, 622 complaints were carried forward to 1990 which had not been dealt with. This is an enormous number for a small staff to deal with. What is going to happen if the Minister does not rescue this board or help them out, is that the backlog is going to get bigger, the length of time people are having to wait is going to get longer, and it is going to be harder to investigate things which happened one, two or three years ago. As a result of this, I understand that many of the complaints which have been made to the board are being withdrawn. Frustrated complainants are finding that the board are behaving and operating in such an inadequate way that they are throwing their hands in the air and asking: what is the point in going to this board? Nothing will be processed for two or three years; the complaint will then be irrelevant and he will not get any serious remedy and he will not get justice. It appears in the last year that many serious, legitimate complaints — or probably legitimate complaints — have actually been withdrawn because of the frustration at the process of this particular board. As a result of this, justice in this country is not being seen to be done properly. People are losing confidence in the institutions of the State and the impartiality of a board of this sort.
We should not think just of the complainants. Plenty of cranks will complain — and people without legitimate grievances will complain to the Garda Complaints Board, as well as those with serious civil liberties being infringed. I think also, Minister, of the Garda. When a complaint is made to this board about the behaviour of the Garda, in many cases the garda has a blot on his copybook for two or, maybe, three years. At least there is a question mark over his head. A serious complaint about the operation and activities of a garda in his behaviour as a special enforcer of law and order is being made. Because it cannot be investigated for two years, it means presumably that that question mark over the garda will provide some sort of obstruction at least to his promotion. It is probably unwise for anybody to promote anyone while there is a serious complaint about him. For the sake of the garda — of the innocent garda — it is only right that these things should be investigated immediately. For the sake of the complainant, it is obviously right that it should be immediate.
The funding has been based on gross underestimates, on estimates which are only 40 per cent of reality. It was also based on the hopes that many of the complaints would go through an informal Garda procedure and would never get to the Garda Complaints Board. This also has not happened to the extent that was hoped for at the time. So, we have the additional burden of the estimates: it was hoped that many would go through the informal Garda complaints procedure, but they are not going through that procedure but are going to the Garda Complaints Board.
In 1988 the Department of Finance apparently carried out a survey of the board's functions. Certainly up to recently, if my information is correct, the board had not received a copy of that survey. I think that is a pity. I think the board is entitled to a copy of that survey. It is only right that it should know whether its own complaints have been found legitimate by the Department of Finance.
The Minister, in response to board representations, supplied it with extra staff. I am aware of the fact that the Minister for Justice provided it with four additional staff, but this was totally inadequate to the needs of the board. The board made a decision which was a controversial one. It may have been right or it may have been wrong; but the board, in response to the extra staff it was given, decided that it would tackle with that staff all the arrears rather than any of the present and immediate problems. It seems to me that that was the right decision for the board to make: that those extra staff should concentrate on the arrears. But it is not adequate that the arrears should be concentrated on and that the present complaints should be put on the long finger.
It seems to me that a complaint of this sort is so serious — some of them will be frivilous and can be dismissed — if it is a legitimate complaint or has a prima facie case, that in justice it should be investigated immediately. If people are mistreated, bullied or in any way manhandled physically or mentally by the Garda, this is a cause for immediate investigation. I should remind the Minister that overseas we see the investigation once again of the police in the United Kingdom on a very celebrated case. I am thinking of the Birmingham Six. It would have been so much better for everybody if that had been properly investigated through the normal procedures at the time. It is going to be very difficult now to investigate how the police in Birmingham behaved in 1974, 15 years later on. Had that been investigated — and I do not wish in any way to predict the result of any such investigation — in 1974 through a properly constituted tribunal there, we would certainly have had a result which would have been less open to question. I hope that the result of the unacceptable delays that we are having here into complaints against the Garda is not that there are miscarriages of justice in this country as well. The possibilities of a cover up become far greater as distance is placed between the happening and the hearing of the complaint.
It is also significant that now in the last few months complaints to the Garda Complaints Board have fallen from 77 to 60 per month. I am told that the reason for that is not because there is less reason to complain, but that the complainants are told that the investigation of these complaints could take anything up to two years. When they realise that it could take anything up to two years, the immediacy and urgency of what they themselves feel are legitimate grievances diminish. In frustration they go away and say they have no interest in going before a board which really does not regard their complaints as a matter of urgency.
This is about justice to the Garda and justice to the complainants. It seems at the moment that we are in danger of turning a blind eye to miscarriages of justice if we are blandly accepting that the processing of these complaints can take so long. We might take a lesson from across the water on this. We do not want a situation to arise here whereby the Garda Síochána are indicted several years later for something that happened only a few weeks ago. It seems that it is imperative, if justice is to be done, that the quality of the investigation must be retained and that it must be speedy.
