I thank the Cathaoirleach for allowing this motion. While I welcome the Minister, Deputy Stagg, I am disappointed the Government did not see fit to send the Minister or the Minister of State from the Department of Justice.
Adjournment Matters. - Garda Complaints Board.
We have an extremely able Minister here. He knows his business.
As I said, I welcome the Minister but I am disappointed the issue I raise was not considered important enough to justify sending the Minister for Justice. My motion concerns the need for the Minister for Justice to address the issue that only a tiny minority of complaints against gardaí to the complaints board every year are ever found to show lapses on the part of the gardaí and the need to ensure that penalties are introduced against people who have been found to make frivolous or vexatious complaints. The level of such complaints going to the complaints board is having a serious effect on the morale of the force and is causing extreme personal trauma to many gardaí.
It is necessary to have a complaints procedure in place to allow the public to bring before a relevant authority the rare cases when a garda abuses his or her position. The present procedure is being abused and there is no control of this abuse. The procedure is being used by criminals to thwart investigations. The Minister for Justice must, as a matter of urgency, bring some semblance of sanity to the complaints procedure and allow the complaints board do the job for which it was established.
Almost half of all complaints against gardaí do not get beyond the first stage of the complaints procedure. Most of them concern matters which would not constitute an offence or a breach of discipline. Another significant number are either frivolous or vexatious. The vast bulk of the remaining complaints going before the complaints board are deemed inadmissible or found to lack substance. The gardaí involved have to bear the trauma of being accused of misdemeanours and await a decision on their fate, sometimes for a considerable period, despite being totally innocent. The trauma is transferred to their families and causes strain in relationships with both families and colleagues. Only a tiny minority of the over 800 complaints received by the board every year are ever found to show lapses on the part of the gardaí.
This is a serious matter. Large numbers of allegations are being made against the force which are found to have no basis or are inadmissible, yet the officers concerned must go through the trauma of having their characters impugned. For example, last year 31 per cent of all complaints found inadmissible by the complaints chief executive were either "frivolous and vexatious" allegations, in the words of the report. The year before the figure was 34 per cent.
Are the Minister and the Department aware of the distress the investigation of these complaints has caused gardaí? If this is understood, why have more efficient procedures not been enacted by the Minister, his officials and the complaints board to respond to those who knowingly make false allegations against the Garda? In its report, the complaints board says it is aware of the distress which the investigation of these complaints causes, but does it really understand? If it does, why have more efficient procedures not been enacted to reprimand those who knowingly make false allegations?
It is impossible for anyone who has not had a knowingly false complaint levelled against him or her to imagine the trauma it causes. This is aggravated by the fact that the gardaí will often know the allegation is made maliciously in an effort to get at the officer concerned. It has got to the stage that active police officers know that every time they become involved in some public order incident or active crime prevention, there is a strong likelihood they will end up with some kind of complaint levelled against them. This is unacceptable and is a hindrance to the forces of law and order in carrying out their duty, as laid down by the Houses of the Oireachtas.
I commend the members of the Force for the excellent work they do and their commitment to the State in the face of such difficult and unfair conditions. The complaints board said that malicious complaints are referred to the DPP but, to date, there has been no successful outcome from this process. The chances of a conviction will remain forever slim unless more satisfactory procedures are enacted to deter people from making false allegations and to penalise them where it is found they did so vexatiously.
I reiterate my view that there must be some form of independent complaints procedure, but the Minister must not make it too easy for criminals and others to make unfounded and often dangerous claims against the Garda. The Government must seriously address the issue and ensure that penalties are introduced where people are found to have made frivolous or vexatious complaints. In other jurisdictions, such as Britain, over the past year, police officers have successfully pursued those who have made such allegations against them in the civil courts and in some cases have won substantial damages. This trend may have to be adopted here unless the complaints board and the Government address the issue as a matter of urgency. I would not like to see this developing but the Garda may have to do it because of the situation they find themselves in. If the Garda is to have confidence in the complaints procedure, adequate and effective sanctions will have to be introduced when unfounded allegations are made. Gardaí will have to be protected from needlessly being involved in the harrowing complaints process.
I respectfully ask the Minister to make the strength of feeling I and the Garda have on the issue known to the Minister for Justice, the Minister of State and the Department of Justice, the Department officials, the complaints board and ensure this is the last year such an issue will have to be raised and that the area of Garda complaints is put on a proper footing.
First, I want to apologise to the House for the delay of my arrival. It was caused by the fact that I was personally named in a motion in the Dáil and was therefore required to attend.
I would like to point out at the outset that the number of cases where disciplinary action is taken is not an appropriate criterion by which to measure the value of an independent complaints procedure. It is important for the operation of the criminal justice system and for the standing of the Garda Síochána that there is an independent procedure for the adjudication of complaints against gardaí. Furthermore, the existence of an independent complaints procedure does in itself act as a deterrent against misconduct.
With regard to frivolous and vexatious complaints, in 1992 178 complaints were deemed inadmissible by the board on these grounds. I am, of course, concerned about this level of frivolous or vexatious complaints, both in terms of wasted resources and the strain that these complaints can put on members of the Garda Síochána and their families. This is a matter which has also concerned the complaints board.
In its first triennial report covering the years 1987-89, the board considered this matter at some length, but did not recommend an amendment of the Act to introduce penalties in such cases. The board points out that section 12 of the Criminal Law Act, 1976, makes it an offence to make knowingly a false report or statement tending to show an offence has been committed. It is the board's policy and practice to refer suitable cases of this nature to the DPP.
The board was also of the opinion that the impact of further criminalisation of vexatious complaints could be wider than anticipated in that it might deter more genuine complaints than truly malicious ones. In addition, the board felt that it would be difficult, time consuming and expensive to successfully prosecute a vexatious complaint.
The board currently has discretion in deeming complaints inadmissible on the grounds that they are frivolous or vexatious. If however, criminal proceedings could arise as a result of this, then the board would have no choice but to admit all such complaints unless satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that they were frivolous or vexatious. The end result of further criminalisation could be that even more vexatious complaints will enter the system.
In its 1992 report, the board stated that it would address the question of frivolous and vexatious complaints in its second triennial report, due later this year. The Minister will consider carefully any further recommendations which the board may choose to make in this matter.