The motion on the Adjournment is the need for the Minister for Justice to ensure that the inquiry instituted in the case of the Tallaght Two, 18 months ago be completed without delay and that the findings be made public.
Very briefly, I will recap on some of the major items in relation to the story of the so-called Tallaght Two, Joseph Meleady and Joseph Grogan, two young men in Tallaght who were convicted and sentenced to five years imprisonment in relation to a joyriding incident. The incident took place in February 1984 when a car owned by Mr. Eamon Gavan — a resident in Templeogue — was stolen by joyriders. Mr. Gavan very bravely clung to the car for about a mile before being dislodged. He did his best to prevent the theft taking place. He subsquently identified the driver and the front seat passenger as being Mr. Meleady and Mr. Grogan. The trial took place in May 1985 in the Central Criminal Court and the prosecution case was based solely on visual identification by Mr. Gavan and his son, Paul. The accused responded with alibis that they were not in the vicinity at the time, had not been involved in the theft and produced certain evidence to support that claim. They further produced a witness, Mr. Brendan Walsh, who declared that he was the driver and that neither Grogan nor Meleady was in the car at the time of the incident. However, the jury convicted both men, Grogan and Meleady, and both received prison sentences of five years. They appealed the sentences in November 1985 and produced fresh evidence in the person of Mr. Paul McDonnell, who claimed he was in the car, and was one of the joyriders. He also claimed that neither Meleady nor Grogan were in the car; in other words, similar evidence was given previously by Mr. Walsh.
In July 1987 the State decided to prosecute Mr. McDonnell for perjury in relation to this matter. It is interesting to note that at that case further evidence was presented by the Garda, which had not been presented at the earlier court hearing, namely that a fingerprint of Brendan Walsh had been found, in 1984, on the interior of the front window of the car — in other words, near the seat where Mr. Walsh claimed he had been. The only matter disclosed at the trial by the prosecution was that a fingerprint which was Mr. Walsh's had been found at the rear of the car.
The case was decided by the jury on the basis of the perception that Mr. Walsh was in the back of the car whereas Mr. Walsh had given evidence that he was in the front of the car.
The major questions that have to be addressed are that certain evidence that was very relevant to the case was withheld at the initial trial in 1984 and accidentally emerged in 1987. Questions will have to be asked as to the reason no identification parade took place, which is the normal procedure. Another man who came forward in a TV programme on RTE, claimed he was the driver of the car — already two men had come forward, one claiming he was in the passenger seat and another in the rear seat, testified to that in court under oath — and subsequently identified himself before senior gardaí as the driver of the car.
The only evidence before either the original hearing or the appeal court was the questionable evidence of the identification of father and son, without the benefit of an identification parade and without any corroborative evidence. As I said, fingerprints which were relevant to the case were not disclosed. It brings us to the question of whether there was a miscarriage of justice in this case. A very substantial campaign has taken place: 10,000 signatures were collected, the people who were involved in the Birmingham Six, including Gareth Pierse, have become involved. Their perception is that the case is similar to cases dealt with in Britain and Ireland, whether it was the Birmingham Six, the Gilford Four or, in our own case the Oscar Breathnach and the Nicky Kelly case where certain uncorroborated evidence was presented which was not sufficient to warrant a conviction but the question remained that there was a likelihood of a miscarriage in the case.
Subsequently, there had been calls for a public inquiry and a judicial inquiry and the State indicated that the Director of Public Prosecutions was examining the matter. My matter on the Adjournment refers to the fact that the Director of Public Prosecutions has been sitting on the case in excess of 18 months, it is now closer to two years, and we still have not had the report. There are major matters that have to be addressed in relation to the validity and reliability of the convictions.
Can the Minister say, if the Director of Public Prosecutions has completed his report? It has taken an enormous length of time on a matter that is of considerable importance, where people's good names may well have been impugned, have served prison sentences and so on. In that context is there any possibility of action being taken on the Martin report in relation to the establishment of an independent body which would recommend to the Cabinet or to the Attorney General — and would investigate in the first instance — that cases, where there was a serious question mark about the validity of the convictions and where there was no further access to the courts be reopened? We do not have that facility here but it is in existence in Britain.
The Martin report recommended a particular procedure for introducing it and that would be one way of dealing with this case. At present the Director of Public Prosecutions is either in the process of making a report or has made a report and I ask that it be presented or at least that we be informed of the state of play in relation to that report and that its findings be published. If not the campaign obviously will continue.
Mr. Meleady's father has left his employment to concentrate on clearing the good name of his son. A large number of people and representative organisations have lent their names as corporate bodies or as individuals seeking to deal with this case to ensure that there is a full examination of the major questions and reservations that exist. The case has also soured relationships between the gardaí and the community in Tallaght and that should not be allowed to continue. It is important that the matter be resolved at an early stage.
With those few words I would like to impress upon the Minister the urgency of getting the matter resolved and of ensuring that the report is finalised, if that has not already been done and that the results are published.
