Dáil Éireann Debate, Wednesday - 1 October 2014
76. Deputy John McGuinness asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine the total costs incurred to date by his Department relative to a person (details supplied); the costs for each year from the commencement of the case showing legal, Department and any other costs involved; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [37245/14]
View answerWithin my Department, functions relating to investigations and the bringing of cases to court are carried out in conjunction with other work and it is not possible to quantify the cost of individual investigations. No legal costs have been incurred by my Department to-date in respect of this case. Such costs are generally borne by the Chief State Solicitors Office and are a matter for that body.
With regard to the case in question, the media coverage of the legal settlement with Mr Fleury to-date has contained significant inaccuracies in relation to the nature of the settlement, which included a confidentiality clause binding both parties not to divulge the details of the settlement. While respecting the confidentiality clause, I want to stress that it did not provide for any compensation whatsoever to be paid to Mr Fleury. Furthermore, I can confirm that the Department’s costs in the Fleury case will be a small fraction of the exaggerated figure mentioned in the press coverage.
I want to emphasise also that the investigation into the Fleury case by the Department had no bearing on the actual settlement of the case. The settlement was agreed only following an approach by Mr Fleury’s legal team seeking a comprehensive settlement to the outstanding legal issues between him and the Department. It is also relevant to note that the Department secured a conviction in 2001 against GVM Exports Ltd, in which Mr Fleury held 50% ownership and was a Director, in respect of offences detected in the course of this investigation.
The substance of the Fleury case relates to events in 1999 at a time when Bovine Brucellosis was causing great hardship to the farming community and imposing significant costs on the Exchequer. It resulted from an investigation by the Department into the illegal movement of cattle in breach of the TB and Brucellosis eradication schemes. Following the investigation, normal legal procedures were followed involving the Office of the Chief State Solicitor and the Courts Service and resulted in Mr Fleury and GVM Exports Ltd being charged with offences relating to the illegal movement of cattle (i.e. without a pre-movement Brucellosis test) and other offences relating to animal identification.
The prosecution of the case was delayed for a considerable period of time over the years, largely due to challenges to the prosecutions initiated by Mr. Fleury, some of which were the subject of Supreme Court rulings, the most recent in December 2013. While the Court ruled in substance against all of his challenges, Mr Fleury had recently mounted further legal challenges to the re-activation of the prosecution and it was in this context that Mr Fleury’s legal team sought a settlement.
