Seanad Éireann debate -
Thursday, 23 Mar 1995

Vol. 142 No. 10

Adjournment Matters - Death of a Person in London.

Mr. Fahey

I thank the Minister for coming to the House to deal with this issue on the Adjournment. It is an issue which has caused grave concern to the Walsh family in Galway. They have been trying to get answers to questions for the last nine years.

Edward Walsh was murdered sometime in December 1985. He was a native of Galway and since 1985 the family has been trying to get answers from the Home Office in London through the Department of Foreign Affairs. However, to date they have not received satisfactory answers to questions regarding the events surrounding the investigation into his death. I will briefly outline some of the matters which concern the family.

The body was retained for two months before being released by the London authorities. A post mortem was carried out on the body of Edward Walsh on 8 February 1986. However, the body which was returned to the Walsh family was collected from the coroner on the day before, 7 February, 1986. The Westminster coroner refused to hold an inquest. The doctor who signed the casualty notes in St. Charles' hospital now says that he never worked there. The Westminster coroner said in 1987 that the doctor who certified Edward Walsh dead was Dr. Anthony Jones. The Westminster coroner says in 1994 that he did not know and does not know who certified Edward Walsh dead.

The family now believes that Edward Walsh did not die on the night he was attacked. The family believes that Edward was alive for at least three days after he was attacked. The family was never told this. In fact, they were told that he died on the same date on which he was injured. The family wrote to the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Spring, on 22 November 1994 asking him to meet the family. Three months later they got a response saying that a meeting would not be productive. The officials in the Department of Foreign Affairs have been most helpful in trying to assist the family in uncovering answers in this sad case. However, a number of issues are still a puzzle to the family. They are anxious that the Department of Foreign Affairs would put further pressure on the British Home Office to carry out a full public inquiry into the events surrounding the investigation into the death of Edward Walsh.

The investigation began shortly after his death in London when he was stabbed in a Notting Hill flat. Former neighbours of the truck driver were charged and acquitted. The incident occurred five days before Christmas 1985 and Walsh had already informed his father that he was planning to return home on holiday. The family has unearthed evidence which suggests that the doctor alleged to have signed a death certificate in St. Charles' hospital never worked there at any stage. Cornelius Walsh, his father, and his brother Raymond have also extracted statements of a mysterious and contradictory nature which convince them that they have not been told the full truth about the death of Edward.

The key to the confusion surrounds statements by John Nodes and Co. Ltd., funeral directors. When Raymond Walsh went to London three days after the murder to collect his brother's body, which was then in the Westminster mortuary, he was first informed by Mr. Michael Nodes that his company had done no business on the night of Edward's death.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

I remind the Senator that he cannot name people in the House.

Mr. Fahey

My apologies. The matter was pursued and the Walsh family was told by the undertaker that his company had collected a body from St. Charles' hospital that night. The family was told that it had been certified as BID — brought in dead — yet hospital records clearly reveal that the young man was not dead when he was brought to hospital. Instead, after attempts were made to resuscitate him, he died at 2.35 a.m. according to the certificate. Although the medical certificates outlining the treatment in the fruitless attempt to save his life are on file, the doctor, whose signature is clearly legible, has claimed that he never worked at St. Charles' hospital. In a letter written in October last year he admits that he did work at the nearby St. Mary's hospital, Page Street. "If he was only treated at St. Charles' hospital then I think it is very unlikely that I was involved", he writes.

Raymond Walsh — I regret having to mention family names — signed a document stating that he had identified the body of his brother in Westminster mortuary but the fact is that he never saw the body. He claims that when he asked to take a proper look he was told by an attendant that he could not. This was three days after his brother's death. Raymond returned home, while the body continued to be held by the Westminster coroner, as is normal in a murder case. It was seven weeks before the body was returned for burial. The family was told not to look inside the casket by the undertakers who brought it from London, so it was buried without being viewed by any of the Walsh family.

Contradictory statements from the undertakers, the coroner's office and the police all convince the family that something went terribly wrong after Edward's death. They suspect that his body may have been used for other purposes, that perhaps organs could have been removed without their permission and that the entire confusion is nothing more than a massive cover-up. The coroner has written to the family informing them that the body was labelled as being that of Edward Walsh when it was collected by the undertaker.

Hospital notes also reveal that he was identified by a police officer who found him wounded and dying in the street. On his person, according to the police, was an Underground rail pass with his photograph, a driving licence and a security card. The undertakers claim that the coroner was mistaken and that one of his staff denied that he had told Raymond Walsh that the firm had taken two bodies from St. Charles' hospital on the night in question. "Only one was taken to Westminster mortuary", he says. For his part, the coroner says that the delay in returning the body was due to the fact that two post mortems had to be carried out, one on behalf of the defence in a murder trial.

Even here huge confusion arises. The records show that one post mortem was held on 8 February 1986. The body was supposed to have been that of Edward Walsh. However, that officially had been returned to Ireland the day before. Some problems in the management of the mortuary in Westminster have come to light. The family is also angry at the fact that the coroner notified the registrar of deaths that Edward Walsh was of no fixed abode while the police were fully aware of his permanent address.

It has cost the family a great deal of money trying to find answers to their questions. They are concerned at this stage that the body that was returned from England is not that of Edward. I ask the Minister that, nine years later, the Department of Foreign Affairs should insist on a proper public inquiry being held in London into the events surrounding the death of Edward Walsh. His mother has died since then and his father is an old man who has had a great deal of trauma in trying to find answers to those questions. The family is determined not to let this issue die without getting adequate answers. I appeal to the Minister of State to have the matter investigated and to request the Tánaiste, as a matter of courtesy, to meet this family, acknowledge their plight and make a commitment to have a full inquiry carried out.

Minister of State at the Department of Foreign Affairs (Ms Burton)

I have great sympathy for the Walsh family. Their grief has been complicated and prolonged by the initial delay in having the remains of their son and brother returned to them and by the difficulties and delays they have encountered in trying to clarify some of the circumstances of his tragic death and its aftermath. It is a situation which cannot but arouse all of our sympathy.

The Department of Foreign Affairs and the Irish Embassy in London assisted the family in its efforts to secure the release of the remains by the coroner with the minimum of delay, but the coroner had to respect the legal right of the person accused of Edward Walsh's murder to carry out a second autopsy, and that was the main cause of the seven week delay which occurred. While fully understanding the distress this caused to the family, the Department had no reason to think that there was anything improper about the way the post mortem examination was carried out.

Since 1989, as requested by the family, the Department and the Embassy have supplemented the efforts of their solicitors to elucidate details of what happened. The points at issue are, essentially, matters of law for clarification by solicitors and, if necessary, by the courts in Britain.

At a recent meeting the family told officials of the Department of Foreign Affairs that many of their concerns are still not resolved. Among those, as the Senator mentioned, are the date when the injuries occurred; the date of the second autopsy; who carried it out and whether organs were removed; where the remains were kept in the hospital and whether there was proper supervision; the situation with regard to an inquest and, most distressful of all, the possibility that the body which was buried may not be that of Edward Walsh.

I understand their frustration that, after over nine years, there are still unanswered questions. It is well to bear in mind, however, that the Home Office in 1986 gave the family a full explanation of the delay in releasing the body and that the coroner's office, the police, the doctors, the hospital staff and the pathologists have rejected the serious allegations of impropriety which have been made against them.

At the request of the family, the Embassy in London wrote to the Home Office last November outlining the family's outstanding questions and asking that they be investigated. Contact with the Home Office is being maintained. The Embassy wrote on 6 February to the solicitors now dealing with the case and offered to assist and co-operate with them.

It would not be appropriate at this stage for the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs to seek a public inquiry into this case. He would need to have much more information and advice about the legal position on each of the issues outstanding before he could decide whether that was a reasonable or appropriate option in British law and practice.

It is, in the first instance, for the family's solicitors to advise them on the options open to them. I understand that a request for a judicial review of the coroner's actions was made in 1993 and rejected by a British court. If a convincing legal case for a formal inquiry of another kind is made, it may be possible for us to support it.

The family has been assured that we will continue to supplement the efforts of their solicitors. For the Senator's information, I offered to meet with the Walsh family recently on behalf of the Tánaiste. That offer was not taken up, as I think the Senator is aware, but it still remains open. Everybody sympathises very deeply with the family. The staff in the Department of Foreign Affairs have made every effort over the nine year period to meet with the family's wishes. This family has endured a horrific situation over a very long period. I assure the Senator that the Department of Foreign Affairs will continue to supplement the efforts of the family and to give them whatever assistance we can in what is a very difficult case.

Mr. Fahey

I appreciate the Minister of State's answer but the fact remains that although the coroner's office, police and doctors have rejected any allegations of impropriety, no investigation was carried out. The Minister of State said in her reply that "if a convincing legal case for a formal inquiry... is made it may be possible for us to support it". Surely, the case which I have just outlined on behalf of the family is sufficient for a formal inquiry. The fact that the Irish Embassy wrote to the Home Office last November, which is five months ago, and has still not received a reply means that this case is not being treated with the proper urgency and respect. I ask the Minister of State to ask that a "formal inquiry of another kind", as she described it, be made immediately.

Ms Burton

We are dealing with another judicial system, the British judicial system, and whatever happens has to take place within the context of that system. We are, obviously, acting on the advice and understanding of the Irish Embassy in London in relation to the British judicial system. As I said, if there is further evidence which would open the way to a further inquiry, we would be happy to see that happening. As I pointed out, when a request for a judicial review was made by the family in 1993 it was turned down by the British courts.

The Seanad adjourned at 4.30 p.m. until 11.30 a.m. on Wednesday, 29 March 1995.