Dáil Éireann Debate, Wednesday - 11 October 2023
4. Deputy Catherine Murphy asked the Minister for Justice if she will establish a statutory inquiry, compliant with international human rights standards, into the arrest, detention, interrogation, prosecution and conviction of persons (details supplied). [44109/23]
View answerThis question seeks to establish whether the Minister intends to set up a statutory inquiry into the arrest, detention, interrogation, prosecution and conviction of Michael Barrett, Osgur Breatnach, John Fitzpatrick, Nicky Kelly, Brian McNally and the late Mick Plunkett in the context of the Sallins train robbery in 1976.
I thank the Deputy. As she has alluded to, she raises a question relating to an investigation of nearly 50 years ago which culminated in the court’s overturning the convictions of two people in 1980, a pardon for one individual in 1992 and the payment of financial settlements. There is no doubt this case, and others of the time that we know of, cast a shadow on the trust we place in our criminal justice and policing systems to ensure justice is done in a fair way. It is important to note, however, that this happened several decades ago. The safeguards which were available at that time to those who were the subject of investigation were very different from those now in place. In fact, they were not in place at the time and this led to many challenges.
Following on from the work of the Ó Briain and Martin committees, the Criminal Justice Act 1984, which regulates the treatment of persons in custody, the Garda Síochána (Complaints) Act 1986 and the Criminal Procedure Act 1993, containing a new appeal procedure based on miscarriage of justice, were introduced. The available safeguards have been further and significantly strengthened in the years that followed.
Ireland now has an increasingly robust system of Garda oversight in place and the Government continues to develop and update our oversight processes. One example of this is the significant work undertaken by my Department to develop the proposals contained in the Policing, Security and Community Safety Bill currently before the Houses. As I have said previously, there is always a threshold for holding a public inquiry and I am not aware of any matter of urgent public interest which would warrant reopening the matter, given that the courts have adjudicated on the cases and, in some instances, a presidential pardon was granted.
I am sure the Minister has received the civil society petition that was prepared by four leading human rights organisations, namely, the Irish Council for Civil Liberties, ICCL, the Committee on the Administration of Justice, the Pat Finucane Centre and Fair Trials. It was delivered to the Minister in September. Has she had the opportunity to go through that? It is a well-argued petition on why an inquiry is necessary. What happened to these five individuals changed their lives irrevocably. There has never been a public inquiry into what happened. I do not know if the Minister watched a television series on RTÉ this year. The programme on the train robbery was compelling and brought the case back to the fore, in particular the appalling treatment meted out to those prosecuted, including evidence that was perjured. Has the Minister completely dismissed the prospect of an inquiry?
The ICCL petition was received by me and my Department. A response will issue in due course. It is something we are going through at the moment. Once the matter has been fully considered and we have gone through the report completely, we will respond.
We have to consider every incident. In the short time I have been in the Department, there have been calls for various types of public inquiry. We always have to consider the threshold of whether there is a public interest. I do not for a second seek to diminish the impact the actions of a small number of people have had on certain individuals or refuse to acknowledge the serious impact those actions have had on people's lives. The fact the criminal justice system has responded in an efficient way is important. Convictions have been overturned and there have been presidential pardons and the payment of financial settlements.
Most important, the systems and structures have changed. People want to know that that type of scenario can never happen again and the correct oversight mechanisms are in place to support someone who is being questioned by the Garda and make sure there is an appeals system and people feel they have recourse if they feel they are being treated unfairly. Significant changes have been made over the years to make sure that is the case.
In terms of a public inquiry, we need to consider what public interest is being served by opening up an inquiry. In this instance, I am not sure such a threshold has been met. Obviously, we will explore and engage with the ICCL on the petition it has brought to me. However, at this time I do not believe the threshold has been met.
I presume the Minister will read the petition. Will she engage with the ICCL in the near future?
There never was a State apology to these six individuals. There is something of an inconsistency in correctly having an issue with what transpired in the UK in relation to legacy cases, given the approach to this kind of case. It is very difficult to square that circle when one sees something like this. Could the Minister give me some indication of when she will read this petition and engage with those groups who have put this very well-argued petition together?
I have already seen the report. I am working with my Department to respond to the ICCL in as quick a way as possible. I know that every case is different. I mentioned that in this case the convictions were overturned and there were pardons and financial settlements. There have been apologies in other different cases. Every individual case is different. I do not for a second condone some of the behaviour by particular individuals who cast a very negative light on what is a wonderful Garda force. An Garda Síochána has wonderful people working in it.
Public inquiries often go on for years, cost a huge amount of money, at the end of the day do not produce any more evidence than we already know, and do not allow us to actually change things for the better in any greater way. I am confident that changes which have been made in recent years - even the changes we are making through the Policing, Security and Community Safety Bill, which is going through the Houses at the moment - will allow for even greater oversight and ways in which we can ensure these types of practices never happen again. While that is the most important thing here, we must also acknowledge the hurt that was caused and the difficulties which arose for individuals. That has been acknowledged in the outcomes, not just in this case but in other areas which are also ongoing. I will respond to the ICCL as quickly as possible.
