Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

COMMITTEE OF PUBLIC ACCOUNTS díospóireacht -
Thursday, 8 Feb 2024

Financial Statements 2022 - Garda Síochána Ombudsman Commission

Mr. Justice Rory MacCabe(Chairperson of the Garda Síochána Ombudsman Commission) called and examined.

Our witnesses are very welcome. I remind all those in attendance to ensure their mobile phones are on silent mode or switched off. Before we start, I wish to explain some limitations to parliamentary privilege and the practice of the Houses as regards references the witnesses may make to other persons in their evidence. The evidence of witnesses physically present or who give evidence from within the parliamentary precincts is protected, pursuant to both the Constitution and statute, by absolute privilege. This means that witnesses have an absolute defence against any defamation action for anything they say at the meeting. However, they are expected not to abuse this privilege and it is my duty as Cathaoirleach to ensure it is not abused. Therefore, if their statements are potentially defamatory in relation to an identifiable person or entity, they will be directed to discontinue their remarks. It is imperative that they comply with any such direction. Witnesses are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice that they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against any person or entity by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable or otherwise engage in speech that might be regarded as damaging to the good name of a person or entity.

Therefore, if their statements are potentially defamatory in relation to an identifiable person or entity, they will be directed to discontinue their remarks. It is imperative that they comply.

Members are reminded of the provisions of Standing Order 218 that the committee shall refrain from inquiring into the merits of a policy or policies of the Government, or a Minister of the Government, or the merits of the objectives of such policies. Members are also reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice that they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the Houses or an official either by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable.

The Comptroller and Auditor General, Mr. Seamus McCarthy, is a permanent witness to the committee. With him is Mr. Ciaran Crowe, audit manager at the Office of the Comptroller and Auditor General. This morning we will engage with officials from the Garda Síochána Ombudsman Commission, GSOC, to examine financial statements for 2022 for the Garda Síochána Ombudsman Commission.

The committee has flagged the timelines for the processing and completion of complaints by GSOC and the resourcing of GSOC as areas of interest. We are joined this morning by the following officials from GSOC: Mr. Justice Rory MacCabe, cathaoirleach; Ms Emily Logan, commissioner; Mr Hugh Hume, commissioner; Ms Amanda McLoughlin, head of finance; Mr. Peter Whelan, director of operations and Ms Valerie Woods, deputy director of administration. We are also joined by Ms Sarah Kennelly, principal officer of criminal governance at the Department of Justice. They are all very welcome on what is a very wet morning.

I now call the Comptroller and Auditor General, Mr. Seamus McCarthy, for his opening statement.

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

Go raibh maith agat, a Chathaoirligh. The Garda Síochána Ombudsman Commission was established under the Garda Síochána Act 2005. As members are aware, the main function of the commission is to investigate complaints concerning Garda conduct and incidents where it appears that Garda conduct may have resulted in death or serious harm to a person. The commission can, on its own initiative, also investigate matters relating to Garda conduct, even if a complaint has not been received.

The commission operates under the aegis of the Department for Justice and is funded from the justice Vote. The commission prepares accruals-based annual financial statements. The commission’s income in 2022 totalled €13.4 million, which was up significantly from the €11.8 million in the previous year. Expenditure in 2022 amounted to €13.5 million, and 73% of this expenditure was incurred in relation to staff costs. The commission had 160 employees at the end of 2022, which was an increase of 28% on the previous year. I issued a clear audit opinion on the 2022 financial statements.

I thank Mr. McCarthy very much. Can we have Mr. Justice MacCabe's opening statement?

Mr. Justice Rory MacCabe

I thank the Chairman for the invitation to appear before the committee today. Members have already been introduced by the Chair to the other members of GSOC and our support staff who are here today as well.

Yesterday, the Policing, Security and Community Safety Act 2024 was signed into law by the President. That will replace GSOC with Fiosrú, the Office of the Police Ombudsman. Fiosrú will have new structures, new management and a lot more work. A core strategic priority for us as commissioners has been to ensure, to the extent that we can, that we leave the organisation well-prepared for the challenges ahead. This has meant significant work for all of us in addition to the delivery of our current statutory functions.

While the Accounting Officer of GSOC is the Secretary General of the Department of Justice, as chair of GSOC, I, with my commission colleagues, approve GSOC’s financial statement and annual report. When Fiosrú comes into being, it will hold its own independent budgetary vote and have its own CEO and Accounting Officer. This is a welcome development. The committee will hear from the Accounting Officer, that is, the Secretary General of the Department of Justice, in a few weeks, and a representative from her Department is here today with us.

GSOC independently investigates allegations from the public of Garda misconduct, whether disciplinary or criminal. We also investigate referrals by An Garda Síochána in the case of death and serious harm, referrals from the Minister for Justice and the Policing Authority. We also investigate matters that we judge to be in the public interest. In addition, we are one of the designated bodies to which Garda members and civilian staff can make protected disclosures.

While investigations can attract significant public interest, we are, as members are aware, precluded by statute from public comment on ongoing investigations or on related matters subject to, or likely to become subject to, proceedings in the courts or in other public fora.

It is also important to be clear about the boundaries of our responsibilities. We do not discipline, suspend or prosecute gardaí. If our investigations conclude that a criminal offence may have been committed, we send a file to the DPP, who, as the State’s independent prosecuting authority, decides whether a prosecution is warranted. If a prosecution is directed, the DPP then conducts the prosecution with GSOC staff appearing, where requested, as witnesses. If our conclusion is that disciplinary misconduct has occurred, we then pass the file to the Garda Commissioner, whose responsibility it is to consider whether suspension and-or a disciplinary sanction should apply. If our conclusion is that neither criminal nor disciplinary misconduct arises, we then notify interested parties of our conclusion and close the file. Where in the course of our investigations we identify systemic issues of concern, we may issue recommendations to the Garda Commissioner. We do this on a non-statutory basis, in the spirit of pooling insight and knowledge that may improve the delivery of policing in Ireland.

In addition to our headquarters in Dublin, we have regional offices in Cork and Longford. We have investigative staff on call seven days a week, 24 hours a day, operating across the country. We receive a significant volume of complaints from members of the public, usually in the region of 2,000 per annum. In 2022, for example, we received a total of 1,826 complaints containing 3,207 separate allegations, while receiving 41 referrals from An Garda Síochána. In that year, we closed 2,301 complaints.

The delivery of our statutory functions depends on the skill and dedication of our staff. The work is complex and demanding and their diligence and persistence are exemplary. As of this week, we have a total of 163 staff along with a number of vacancies - my best guess is 23 - we are working to fill. Our budget allocation for 2022 was €13.679 million, in 2023 it was €16.67 million and this year it is €19.596 million. Increases in budget and staffing in recent years, added to organisational changes that we have been implementing, have assisted us in reducing backlogs and preparing for major institutional transition. Notwithstanding these increases, our level of resourcing remains below what we need now and significantly below what the organisation is likely to need in order that fiosrú can meet its new remit. Grant Thornton independently assessed and had a look back and a look forward at our organisation. It estimates the additional staffing we will require would be a minimum of 180 and, depending on the extent of the additional work that arises, up to 239. That is not insignificant.

Committee members will now be familiar with our observation that for the new office to succeed, significant additional support in the shape of resources and expertise will be needed. In order to better identify the new ombudsman’s needs, we commissioned an external organisational review. This helped us make a business case to the Department of Justice in which we outlined the level of resourcing in terms of funding, capacity and expertise that fiosrú will need.

Resourcing is not just about money. The Minister for Justice and her Department have been reactive to and supportive of our ongoing needs. The specialist nature of our work and the broader dynamics of the labour market today pose real ongoing challenges in finding and retaining suitably qualified staff. This is a challenge we understandably share with colleagues across the public service and Civil Service and will require workforce planning as fiosrú comes to terms with its new mandate.

We are seeking to diversify the means by which we recruit into our organisation and are identifying how better to retain the staff we already have on our books. To this end, we are in the process of procuring a partner in the third level education sector to design an accredited training programme to provide the learning and development opportunities that our staff need.

In broad terms and over a phased period, we are looking at a minimum of a doubling of our current staff complement, including a considerable increase in our complement of investigative staff. That will be essential. It is our clear aim as a commission to do everything we can to ensure that the new office of the police ombudsman can do the job that the Oireachtas mandates us to do, to which the public, Garda members and staff are entitled - human-rights-based, independent, policing oversight that promotes accountability and enhances public support for and trust in policing in Ireland.

The last time we spoke, I invited the committee to come visit us in our Dublin headquarters. I reissue that invitation today to meet the staff, listen to them and see the work they do. It is my belief that if the committee does that, it will be impressed. I thank the committee for the opportunity to address it.

I thank Mr. Justice MacCabe. The first speaker is Deputy Verona Murphy.

Mr. Justice MacCabe said that it is hoped to double the current number of staff, which is 160, to 320. Did he say, however, that the Grant Thornton review said the staffing level was 180? Is that adequate or is that-----

Mr. Justice Rory MacCabe

That is the number of additional staff it is looking at-----

Mr. Justice Rory MacCabe

-----at a minimum. Its report examined the work that it thinks would come from the Department of Justice, even though it could not be certain about it, and we still cannot be certain about that.

However, the recommendation was an extra-----

Mr. Justice Rory MacCabe

If its assessment was correct, it was looking at us.

Can the witnesses give us a brief outline of how the complaint process works?

Mr. Justice Rory MacCabe

I will ask Mr. Whelan-----

Mr. Justice Rory MacCabe

I will ask Mr. Whelan, our director of operations, because he is the man.

I ask him to be as brief as possible but for the public interest.

Mr. Peter Whelan

Complaints come in from any citizen in the country and go to an admissibility process. We receive them in several different ways, as members will know, from our website. There are 14 different languages through which a complaint can be made online. People can phone in, email in or visit our office. We take the complaint then. It is entered on our case management system. It then goes through an admissibility process. Even though in 2022 we had 1,826 complaints, I think 906 of them were admitted. They went on for further investigation. Once they are admitted, we have to decide whether we are looking at a potential criminal offence or a disciplinary offence. Depending on which it would be, it would then enter the different processes within the organisation.

How long does the first instance to check admissibility take usually?

Mr. Peter Whelan

We have had some struggles there with the staff numbers but the receipt of the complaint is very quick. If we get any indication from the complaint that it may be a criminal offence, it will be done very quickly because we are on a clock for gathering the evidence. In the first month, if we want to gather things like CCTV footage, we need to process that very quickly. The team picks out what it feels might be a criminal offence and passes it on very quickly then to the investigation staff. It is designated then by a deputy director as an investigation. We have the same powers as police would have to investigate once we have designated a criminal investigation. If it is disciplinary, it may take a bit longer, or if we feel there might not be something and it will not actually be admissible, we would put that lower in the pack. We always have some backlog of admissibility complaints but we are striving to get that number down.

Is there a timeline for the complainant as regards making complaints?

Mr. Peter Whelan

Yes, 12 months.

Obviously, criminal complaints made 12 months after an event are very difficult regarding-----

Mr. Peter Whelan

Very. Well, we have 18 months for a statute-barred-----

But for video evidence or anything, obviously, or-----

Mr. Peter Whelan

It is very difficult to-----

Yes. Would it not be necessary then to reduce that timeline or-----

Mr. Peter Whelan

Yes. It is a judgment call, really.

Does Mr. Whelan most people are aware that it is 12 months?

Mr. Peter Whelan

They are. Most people would come in well before the 12 months. We find it challenging when people come in 11 months later and we are trying to gather evidence from an event that happened 11 months prior to-----

One would hope it is not a simple thing and they do consider it and maybe after the 11 months they feel there is no option. Either way, it needs to be timely.

Mr. Peter Whelan

Some people might wait to see if there is going to be a charge against them, possibly, by the Garda for-----

Mr. Peter Whelan

Yes, and they might be waiting for that process to finalise and then they would come to us.

Does GSOC have any complaints mechanism to deal with the Policing Authority or is it just An Garda Síochána? Does GSOC not involve itself with the Policing Authority? If a complaint were made, for instance, against a Commissioner or an assistant commissioner, GSOC does not deals with it and, therefore, the maladministration, as some would refer to it, of the Dublin riots would not be an issue for GSOC at all.

Mr. Justice Rory MacCabe

Unless somebody comes to us to make a complaint concerning the conduct of a member of the Garda Síochána in the course of that.

However, the presence of gardaí or anything to do with the administration of gardaí in a rota for that event has nothing to do with GSOC.

Mr. Justice Rory MacCabe

It is a matter for the Commissioner.

Mr. Hugh Hume

The Act actually excludes the general administration of the Garda Síochána. It is inadmissible as a complaint. The Act actually prescribes that.

That might be something we will have to look into separately with the Department of Justice.

It was significant that 50% of the complaints were deemed to be inadmissible. Are there repercussions for complainants who make frivolous or vexatious complaints, because there certainly are for the Garda member? Whether it is found to be true or otherwise, it is a stressful time for the Garda member. Is there any action taken by GSOC with regard to such complaints?

Mr. Hugh Hume

First, I have to say that sometimes people make repeat complaints and they are not admissible because they are out of time or there is some other reason, and they come back with more complaints, but they can be genuine so there is no-----

No, no. I asked about vexatious.

Mr. Hugh Hume

But it is determining if they are vexatious. For frivolous, we will rule inadmissible if they are frivolous or vexatious. Frivolous would be something like they complained about a garda who has dirty boots - something low level that we would not take care of.

Vexatious is where there is some degree of malice behind it. If we assess that there is a degree of intent to cause the garda harm or it is not genuine, we can exclude a complaint because it is vexatious. We can do that at the admissibility stage or we can do that when we gather a bit more evidence, and we do that. By and large, the greatest reason we close complaints is in that stage where we have done an assessment and we find there is no case to answer.

In terms of the individual, clearly, if we were to identify that, beyond just malign, there was an actual lie to GSOC, we have power under the Act to take criminal prosecutions or to conduct a criminal investigation into that. Since we have been formed, we have done that on 12 different occasions. Six of them are related to Garda members and six of them are related to members of the public who, we believe, were untruthful with us.

Six Garda members made untruths in a complaint.

Mr. Hugh Hume

Potentially - we investigated - and six members of the public. The outcomes of those were: two Garda members' cases were dismissed at court; and for the four members of the public, they were all convicted and one was overturned on appeal. There is currently six cases still working their way through the criminal justice system but they are all matters decided by the DPP.

When would those 12 have been reported? Over what timeline? How far back would they date?

Mr. Hugh Hume

That is over about a ten-year period.

It is a very small-----

Mr. Hugh Hume

It is.

-----weighting.

Mr. Hugh Hume

We have to be very sure about prosecuting members of the public for giving false information because we would not want to be seen with that to be our primary function.

I understand. When we look at what level of complaints GSOC is handling and the staff, what impact is resourcing having on timelines and complaint tally?

Mr. Peter Whelan

We have obviously mapped out our complaints. In January 2022, we had 1,138 investigations. That dropped, in January 2023, to 740. That dropped again, in January 2024, to 590. The reason for that is we have started to improve our business processes internally. We have prioritised what type of investigations need to go to the commission and we have delegated authorities through the organisation for lower-level cases. We have devolved decision-making and we set up some specialist units - a digital forensic unit and some specialist children interviewers - and we have had some small increase in investigators. That has allowed us to bring down the number of live investigations, despite the fact that the number of admissible complaints has increased. In 2022, we had 904, but in 2023, we had 962. We have had an increase in admissible complaints but a decrease in investigations.

We have also had a decrease in the median time to investigate. In our criminal cases, in 2022, the median was 366 days; and that has dropped to 224 in 2023. In our disciplinary cases, in 2022, we had a median of 320 days. That has dropped, in 2023, to 220 days.

Some 87% of our cases are now within two years.

From start to finish.

Mr. Peter Whelan

Yes. With the current caseload they would be within a two-year period. There has been considerable progress in the last 18 months to two years.

Does GSOC do KPIs?

Mr. Peter Whelan

Not for investigation timelines, other than medians. We do on our casework side but the investigations are so different in nature and complexity. We would know what timelines things are taking but we would not be able to set a KPI because the investigations are so different.

As a general comment, does Mr. Whelan find the Garda co-operate with GSOC? If it does not, it would impact the timeline obviously, but is it the case that it does or does not co-operate?

Mr. Peter Whelan

In general it does. We have a small number of cases where we are waiting for information longer than we would have liked. We may have members who we would find difficult to meet if we need to do a caution interview. We have to set up a date, often with their solicitor. The solicitor would become unavailable or the member might be unavailable. That can take a while but by and large, it does co-operate.

It is on the lower end of the scale. An incident came to my attention where a complaint was passed from GSOC to be investigated by the local Garda, where the garda who was put forward was not even mentioned in the complaint. To me, that is something that not only would hold up things but it is a complete mix up if a garda is being investigated who has not even been mentioned by the complainant. Other gardaí were but in this instance, the garda who was investigated was not mentioned. How do you deal with that? Obviously the complaint becomes inadmissible with regard to this garda but how does GSOC deal with that?

Mr. Peter Whelan

There is a local intervention process. We have an informal process where if it is a very low level service level complaint we would give it back to the Garda and an inspector would deal with that but it would be in relation to the named garda in the complaint. If there is another garda where they find a wrongdoing they should be coming back to us with that.

Section 94.1 is an unsupervised investigation. That goes to a superintendent to investigate. Again, it would be a service level complaint but of a little higher level and it is in the legislation that we would do that. Then we have a tier above that again where we have a supervised investigation where we would supervise that investigation but in all cases we should know the identity of the garda. If there is any investigation that happens within An Garda Síochána that brings up another wrongdoing by a garda it should be coming back to us on that.

Does it happen that a complainant comes to GSOC and says they do not know the garda’s name?

Mr. Peter Whelan

It does.

Do they have to know the garda’s name?

Mr. Peter Whelan

That does happen. In the new Bill it is something that is specifically mentioned, in that we can investigate even where the Garda member's identity is not known.

That was not the case here. It just happened. It was put to bed but it is not helpful. It warrants further investigation, particularly on behalf of the member having their name cleared. It should be a question of how she was identified if she was never named.

Mr. Peter Whelan

We can open public interest investigations where there is no complaint at all. If we find that there is information -----

I know. It would not have been that. I am just talking about when it comes back into the local arena. It is not really satisfactory that the gardaí are investigating gardaí. I am sure GSOC feels the same about that. That system gives rise to all types of issues such as the one I just mentioned.

I want to ask about staffing, the range of employees and their benefits. It appears 90% of GSOC’s spending, or maybe higher, is on salary or wages. There are 18 staff at the lower level, between €60,000 and €70,000. The statement do not give the numbers of staff it has if you look at the range of employees and their benefits. Is that just outlining the new employees for 2021 to 2022?

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

I think it is note 3. That shows the remuneration of any staff who received more than €60,000 in the year. The other staff members would be at lower levels of remuneration.

That is fine. I could not figure out the lack of a figure when it came to 160 employees. How many GSOC staff are on secondment, if any? Are there seconded staff within GSOC?

Ms Valerie Woods

We have had a number of seconded staff. At the moment we do not have any staff on secondment.

Does GSOC have any staff on secondment to it?

Ms Valerie Woods

Not currently.

So the staffing levels are as they are.

Ms Valerie Woods

They are our staff, yes.

I welcome our guests and thank them for their work in GSOC. I will first focus on GSOC's upcoming transition to the Office of the Police Ombudsman under the new PSCS Bill. Can I get an overview of how the transition will impact day-to-day operations within GSOC and how it is progressing?

Mr. Justice Rory MacCabe

One of the things that happened in the past 18 months or so is we looked at the work we were doing as a commission and decided a better use of our resources would be if one member of the commission took ownership of the transition process. That was Ms Emily Logan. Another person took ownership of the case management system, which is a complex business. I will ask Ms Logan to deal with that.

Ms Emily Logan

We started our project in relation to the transition in July 2021. Internally, across teams we have 18 in the core steering group. Externally, we are involved in two things. The first is a programme board, which is a strategic national board with all the oversight bodies and the Garda. That is run by the Department of Justice. Following from that is an implementation group. Internally, we engage in two key workstreams. The first is called the new model and is about having a voted account. We have not had a CEO in GSOC before so we will have a CEO who is the Accounting Officer from 1 July. Much of the work around that is preparing for having a voted account and being able to do that from 1 July. We recently reported to the Department of Justice and described ourselves as vote-ready. We have engaged and Ms Amanda McLoughlin, our head of finance, has been engaging since 2022 with financial shared services and the National Shared Services Office on setting up the environment. That is ready to be tested. We are at a stage where we are looking for small things like numbers from Revenue, and numbers from Department of Public Expenditure, NDP Delivery and Reform once we know the Act will commence and we have confirmation of that. Internally, it is around processes. It refers to the kind of things that Mr. Peter Whelan, our director of investigations, spoke about. There are multiple new procedures and processes that need to take place. We have 31 new procedures. We are taking the opportunity to enhance and improve what we do, so some are improved processes. The others are completely new, where there is a new provision in the Bill that we have to set up a new procedure for. Much work is centred on that.

The other important thing, aside from the number of staff, is capability and skill sets. Mr. Whelan referred to child specialist interviewing, which is one of the most recent ones. We are trying to maximise our independence. While we are independent institutionally, we have to be able to function without the gardaí and without depending on external agencies.

There is an increased need for investigators and another key initiative is a wider geographical spread. What is GSOC doing in those areas?

Ms Emily Logan

It would be fair to say we and our staff have been extremely willing to try to make sure we are ready to go for the first-----

There is an increased need for investigators and another key initiative is a wider geographical spread. What is GSOC doing in those areas?

Ms Emily Logan

I do not know if the Deputy missed our chair's earlier presentation but we did a very extensive and comprehensive independent review of the organisation, presented a business case-----

How many additional investigators will be on board?

Ms Emily Logan

The number given by our chair was 180 in terms of increased staff requirement.

Not all of those are investigators but that is GSOC's core work and we are focused on increasing our investigations.

In terms of adding geographically to the staff, GSOC has offices in Cork and Longford. Does it intend to open additional offices?

Ms Emily Logan

I am looking at my colleagues here just to make sure I am giving coherent information. While that may have been a presentation in the past from previous commissions that is not the case at the moment.

Ms Emily Logan

GSOC is trying to enhance Dublin, Longford and Cork.

With regard to complaints and investigations, GSOC has faced criticism in the past for releasing the full details of criminal charges faced by individuals before they were put into the public domain. Will the GSOC representatives share some of their thoughts and explain how GSOC is addressing this situation? I know most recently at a Dublin Coroner's Court hearing a case was publicly aired. What is GSOC doing to address this issue?

Mr. Hugh Hume

I can speak to some of that. Obviously, there are sensitivities about being case-specific, as the Deputy will appreciate. Mr. Whelan might assist me on this. Just to reiterate what the chair said earlier, charges - be they criminal or related to discipline - are not a matter for GSOC. They are a matter for the Director of Public Prosecutions, the director at-----

Does GSOC refer back to the actual person at the centre of the investigation or does it allow the likes of the coroner to outline that there will be criminal charges related to a subsequent investigation?

Mr. Hugh Hume

GSOC goes to great lengths to ensure that at all stages of the investigation the person who is subject to investigation is provided with an update. The legislation, section 103 of the Act, requires us to provide progress and outcomes to complainants. We provide them at regular intervals as to where the investigation, including when we get a direction from the Director of Public Prosecutions.

Has GSOC failed in its duty in the past to provide proper communication with those who are under investigation?

Mr. Hugh Hume

I am not aware of any specific case. I am aware of media commentary but I am not aware of any specific case where GSOC has not provided information, either to the person directly or through their nominated representative with whom the person has asked us to communicate through.

In terms of the length of time it takes for GSOC to undertake investigations, are there issues with regard to concerns about how GSOC is continuing to extend the time, which in one sense causes undue stress to those who under investigation? What is GSOC doing to rectify this?

Mr. Hugh Hume

Strategically, I would say that, yes, we have issues because it is important all investigations are dealt with in a timely way and as quickly as possible for the fairness of complainants and for the garda. Mr. Whelan has spoken already about some steps he has taken. Will he give some more detail again about how he would reduce that?

Mr. Peter Whelan

I think it is fair to say GSOC has done as much internally. We have improved our business processes. We have developed specialist units. We have delegated authority and have devolved decision-making. We have set out in our strategic priorities where cases need to be signed off and at what level. We have brought in some more investigators.

Grant Thornton did a benchmarking exercise and looked at similar agencies in other jurisdictions. Investigators in those would have two to six cases per investigator. Grant Thornton set a benchmark saying that the proper number of cases for GSOC, given all of the circumstances, might be ten cases per investigator. At the moment there are more than 20, so that causes delays. There can be all the process improvements we have had. We have reduced timeframes, the number of complaints and the length of investigations but at the end of the day, it is only when we get additional resources that we will truly reduce the number of investigations per investigator.

With regard to established procedures in place to investigate allegations against GSOC personnel or any identified shortcomings, are procedures in place within GSOC to investigate its own personnel?

Mr. Hugh Hume

Absolutely. We both have an internal policy. We are part of the Civil Service so the Civil Service code and guidelines cover that. Ms Woods might talk about that in a moment. If the matter was of a criminal nature, it would be investigated by An Garda Síochána.

How many investigations into GSOC personnel are ongoing ?

Ms Valerie Woods

Currently none are ongoing, but we have a mechanism for taking complaints against personnel.

Has GSOC had any prosecutions of or disciplinary actions against GSOC employees recently?

Ms Valerie Woods

Not in the past 12 months, which is the time I have been in GSOC.

Have you referred any cases about GSOC personnel to An Garda Síochána?

Mr. Justice Rory MacCabe

Yes, we have referred one.

Is that employee currently suspended?

Mr. Justice Rory MacCabe

No, that employee resigned before the matter was referred to the Garda Commissioner.

Will there be subsequent follow-up by An Garda Síochána on any investigation?

Mr. Justice Rory MacCabe

That is a matter for the Garda Commissioner.

At this stage GSOC has nothing to do with it.

Mr. Justice Rory MacCabe

No.

Ms Emily Logan

We are prohibited from having anything to do with it. This is the case that happened in April 2023. It was in the public domain.

Mr. Hugh Hume

We are co-operating with An Garda Síochána by providing the information it requires.

There may be an opportunity, for example, for the DPP to bring charges or for non-employment related sanctions to be imposed, if that is the correct way of putting it.

Mr. Justice Rory MacCabe

That is entirely a matter for the Garda Commissioner.

My question is not case specific, but whether those options are available.

Mr. Justice Rory MacCabe

If the Garda Commissioner decides there is a case to answer, the DPP will be asked to deal with it.

Ms Emily Logan

What is in the public domain is that all members of the commission and all members of staff of GSOC are prohibited from sharing any information under section 81 of the Act. It is a criminal offence to release any protected information that may have a harmful effect.

One of the issues I explored with GSOC in detail the last time it was here, was the issue of resources and its impact on the length of time investigations take. Of particular concern were those people under the age of 18 who had made a complaint. Ms Logan gave a credible and strong contribution on that occasion. I will return to that theme. Will the witnesses talk a little about the maximum length of time it is currently taking to process cases? For example, what is the longest period a case is ongoing and does GSOC have an average time for an investigation to take?

Ms Emily Logan

I ask the Deputy to bear with me. Mr. Whelan has already indicated this so for consistency, it is better for him to answer the question on the length of time.

I heard his contribution earlier but I was not sure he had mentioned that. I apologise.

Mr. Peter Whelan

Some 87 % of our cases are investigated within two years, so 13% are outside that.

How long would the longest investigation take?

Mr. Peter Whelan

Some 94% cases are completed in up to three years and 6% of our cases take more than three years.

Longer than three years is a considerable length of time for an investigation, both for the person subject to it and for the complainant. I accept that those cases are the most complicated ones and so on. Are resources a significant factor in the 6% of cases or is it the complexity of the case?

Mr. Peter Whelan

It is normally the complexity of the case. We could always do with additional resources but the complexity of cases is what leads to them going on for longer than three years.

To return to my question about those under 18, do any of the cases that are ongoing for longer than three years involve those under the age of 18?

Ms Emily Logan

I will pick up here, if I may. Mr. Whelan can jump in if he has anything to add. The Deputy's concern is the length of time. I will come back on that and give some assurance. One of the issues was our dependency as an organisation on the specialist skills of the gardaí in the protective services bureau to interview children who are witnesses or victims of crime. As Mr. Whelan mentioned earlier, we are in the process of running a significant training programme, one aspect of which involves a group of eight people who have a particular interest in or aptitude for working with children and young people under the age of 18. They have been trained and recently obtained their certificates. We are trying to reduce our dependency. The Deputy commented last time on the concern of children and families coming into GSOC when they have made a complaint against a garda and the person they meet is a garda. We are doing our level best to maximise our independence in that area and demonstrate to children and families that when they make a complaint to GSOC, they will be met by a GSOC investigator who has the specialist skills to interview them.

Therefore, the ambition would be that not only could somebody under the age of 18 make a complaint, but that investigation or interaction might take place in a non-Garda facility and also might include non-members of the Garda Síochána.

Ms Emily Logan

Absolutely.

Okay. Does Ms Logan have a timeline-----

Mr. Justice Rory MacCabe

And it would be more timely.

Ms Emily Logan

Part of the problem is that we have had to wait - to be fair to the Garda, it has been very good to us - on the Garda Síochána's list, and probably at the bottom of its list, in protective services to have a child interviewed. That has contributed to the length of time for those particular cases about which the Deputy is worried.

For the record, the reason why, obviously, the Garda would be needed in that case is because of the nature of the complainant being under the age of 18.

Ms Emily Logan

Yes.

Does Ms Logan have a timeline for when that separation from or non-dependence on the Garda services will be completed?

Ms Emily Logan

We now have eight, and Mr. Whelan might correct me if I am wrong, specialist staff who are able to interview.

Therefore, if a complaint was made today or next week, is it likely that that young person would not have an interaction with gardaí and it would not happen in a Garda facility?

Ms Emily Logan

Yes, absolutely.

That is very welcome news and, certainly, a shift from the last time Ms Logan was here.

Ms Emily Logan

It is. The other thing to say to the Deputy is that we also having been engaging with Tusla because it has child specialist interview suites around the country. We are trying to see if we can work with Tusla in order that people do not also have to go to a Garda station and can go to another location.

To return to the question that prompted Ms Logan's contribution, how many of the 7% remaining that are over three years involve those under the age of 18?

Ms Emily Logan

I do not have an answer to that-----

Ms Logan might come back to us.

Ms Emily Logan

-----but I can come back to the Deputy on that.

It is a very specific question, to be fair, so Ms Logan might come back to me on that.

Ms Emily Logan

Yes.

I really think those cases need to be prioritised. The length of time for anybody in this situation is very difficult, but in a child's lifetime, there is almost an obligation on the State to demonstrate fairness in life and ensure that a process is available with a speedy response. Within the development of child's own lifetime, it is so important that we try to deliver justice where there is a perception of injustice.

Ms Emily Logan

We are very alive to that. Mr. Whelan referred earlier to strategic priorities that are triaged, if you like, which come to the top of the list to make sure the commission is briefed and knows what is going on. Cases with children and young people under the age of 18 is one of those priorities.

Ms Emily Logan

We do, therefore, keep a close eye.

Going forward into the new organisation, are there any child-specific measures that Ms Logan believes might assist her in carrying out her work?

Ms Emily Logan

I cannot remember what number it is, but one of the new provisions is that children over the age of 16 without parental care can come to GSOC and make a complaint and they will be treated as an adult, if you like. In the past, children had to have a parent or guardian, and, for some of the children who come to us, they are not-----

When Ms Logan says "treated as an adult", she means that they can make a complaint, not that they will be treated as an adult.

Ms Emily Logan

Yes. I am sorry; I thank the Deputy for that. He is absolutely right. They will be able to come to us and make a complaint. We have children in care of the State. We have children who are living on the streets. We have children who are not in a situation where they are living in a home with parents who can come on their behalf.

Many of them would have had unsatisfactory interactions with gardaí and would not have previously been able to make a complaint.

Ms Emily Logan

It opens up the accessibility of GSOC and coupled, hopefully, with our increasing expertise in the area, we are making strides or efforts to implement that.

I ask Ms Logan to continue to prioritise those cases involving those aged under 18. It is not that the others are not important, but I have a particular feeling towards those.

I will come back to the incidents, and Deputy Murphy kind of touched on the issue, of the Dublin riots. What it brought to the fore was a feeling within An Garda Síochána that gardaí very much were looking over their shoulders at the menace that GSOC might be to them having a strong response to a very difficult set of circumstances.

This is my first question. Did GSOC receive any complaints with regard to the date that is referred to on which the Dublin riots took place?

Mr. Hugh Hume

Does Mr. Whelan know?

Mr. Peter Whelan

We received five complaints, a number of which have been withdrawn since. There were five in total, however.

Okay. I am very conscious of not interfering in the case or the details of it. Did the five received related to the date on which the Dublin riots took place also relate to the incidents that took place in Dublin city that day?

Mr. Peter Whelan

Yes.

Mr. Whelan said a number had been withdrawn. Does he know how many?

Mr. Peter Whelan

I think it was two from memory.

Therefore, there are still three-----

Mr. Peter Whelan

I would need to check that for the Deputy, but yes.

Let me change direction. There are still a number of investigations taking place that relate to the Dublin riots.

A concern among both the public and the gardaí was that guards did not have the freedom to respond. I would like to give our guests the opportunity to respond to that here because I believe that the Garda Commissioner did. Is there anything that our guests would like to say to that public commentary around how guards might be limited in responding to that sort of situation?

Mr. Justice Rory MacCabe

The first thing is that we understand that complaints can have serious consequences for gardaí who may, if the Commissioner so decides, be suspended while their investigation takes place. That will put their career at risk and obviously will cause great stress on their families and on their lives. That is the nature of the process. On the other hand, gardaí accused of criminal wrongdoing are presumed innocent, like all persons accused of a crime, but the Commissioner must decide whether a garda accused of wrongdoing should continue working, pending the outcome. That can be a very difficult judgment for the Commissioner to make.

Obviously it is not within Mr. Justice MacCabe's remit to recommend the parameters of the use of force. To clarify, does he believe that any questions about the use of force is a matter for the Garda Commissioner and the Garda Commissioner exclusively?

Mr. Justice Rory MacCabe

Yes.

Ms Emily Logan

Something came to mind there. The most solid piece of information that came out, in terms of public reporting on that, was from Assistant Commissioner Paul Cleary for the eastern region who is doing an operational review. The members probably know this but he sent questionnaires out to all of the guards who were involved that night. Of all of those questionnaires that came back, and people were asked about the use of force specifically, less than 5% of all of those people reported that they had a lack of confidence in use of force. It was not any reference to GSOC. It was a confidence issue but it was less than 5%. That is the report from Paul Cleary, the assistant commissioner.

Ms Emily Logan

I know they are doing an operational review that will report to the police commission.

To clarify, it is the assistant commissioner's findings. Is Ms Logan suggesting that it was a smaller factor in the overall operation on that evening?

Ms Emily Logan

It is certainly sharply at variance from the media commentary on it.

I call Deputy Alan Kelly.

Can I ask Mr. Justice MacCabe, Ms Logan and Mr. Hume how long each of them is in their current position?

Mr. Justice Rory MacCabe

I am in there since 15 January 2022. Let me think. It is two and a half years.

Ms Emily Logan

We are 2021.

Mr. Hugh Hume

It is February 2021, for both of us.

It will not come as much of a shock to anyone watching or some people here that I have a deep concern about GSOC. I will preface my remarks by saying that the structures do not help and hamstring some of GSOC's work. I have a concern about the future of policing report and the Policing, Security and Community Safety Act because what is recommended here is not what is in here but a delegation from the Department of Justice will come to see us in a few weeks and I guess that is not your fault either. I do think there are improvements but it is not what it says on the tin because the Department has always taken a pick-and-mix view as regards that report, in my opinion.

We have a recruitment and retention issue in An Garda Síochána. I represent Templemore. I know it probably better than anyone inside here, along with my Tipperary colleagues. We have a real issue and there is a deep concern about GSOC. I preface my comments with what I said earlier. The riots in Dublin manifested that concern in one night because gardaí were afraid. They were afraid to act and it is as simple as that. I know some of them and they were afraid to act. One of the reasons they were afraid to act was because of, obviously, consequences for their career. There was also a perceived zealousness when it came to GSOC and I am only expressing what members of An Garda Síochána are telling me.

I have a number of questions and I am glad that Ms Logan created the precedent earlier by referring to a specific case in April of last year. First, Deputy Catherine Murphy and I are the only two surviving members, and I do not know whether that is fortunately or unfortunately, from the previous Committee of Public Accounts.

That is not a great way of putting it.

I know. I was joking. I started there and I did not know where to go with it.

Why did it take six yeas and three months for the issue with the Garda training college, where the report came from this committee, to be sent to the DPP? I would like a quick answer as I am caught for time. Second, will GSOC clarify whether the referral to the DPP is about our report and its contents and the issue with European funds, or is it just one of them?

Mr. Hugh Hume

I will address that as best I can. Obviously, as the matter is before the DPP we are constrained. On the timeline, I can talk to some of that. The Deputy has seen some of the letters going back to Ms Justice Mary Ellen Ring, so I do not propose to regurgitate them per se. However, it is important to state that for GSOC at the time this was a very complex and unique investigation. More than 7,600 documents were gathered as part of this investigation into very technical issues. It was something that was quite outside the normal scope of a police oversight body. It was a very technical and complex investigation and that was the reason we brought in-----

Is it both OLAF and what went through this committee? Have both the European funds and what we went through in this committee been referred to the DPP?

Mr. Hugh Hume

Certainly I can say the OLAF report has a lot of read-across to our investigation in terms of the-----

Whether it is covering both areas is all I want to know.

Mr. Hugh Hume

Will the Deputy just clarify what he means by the second area?

We brought up certain issues. We did a report in this committee. Does the investigation cover those issues and the European funds issues?

Mr. Hugh Hume

European funds issues are definitely covered. They are away. The second issue we investigated - that was opened by GSOC - related to the movement of money from Templemore to sports clubs. That was the second issue-----

What about all the other issues in the report here?

Mr. Hugh Hume

Is that regarding the governance of the college and those matters? No, those matters were dealt with by the Garda Commissioner and the Department of Justice. They were-----

This is good information because this is not public. The only issues that have gone to the DPP are the issues relating to the transfer of money to sports clubs and the European funds.

Mr. Hugh Hume

That is correct.

That opens a question for us a committee because if that is concluded, we can have a separate discussion on that.

I wish to bring up the issues that have gone on in Limerick, which there is a lot of public discourse about. There are hundreds of articles of various kinds on it. I have a deep concern. I live near Limerick. The morale of An Garda Síochána in Limerick is on the floor. What has been going on here is deeply concerning. A number of cases have been brought forward and have been dropped and there other cases that obviously are not going to be referred to. Why is GSOC not, in the public interest, investigating what happened here? Why is it not investigating the investigators and investigating why these cases took so long? People's lives were effectively destroyed. Psychiatric help was needed and families were affected. The impact of all of this on some of these members is frankly outrageous. I just want to know in the public interest. By the way, another case has gone through the courts and the decision has gone around on WhatsApp all over the place. I will not refer to it, but it would give GSOC a lot of good brand and good scope if, in the public interest, it were to pursue cases where there are concerns about how they were dealt with. There are concerns, and I am not alone. Across politics in here there are concerns about what I am referring to, so why, in the public interest, are such case, which never actually end up being pursued, not being followed up by GSOC?

Mr. Hugh Hume

There are a couple of issues around that. First, in order for us to open a public interest investigation as the Deputy articulated, we would have to be satisfied it was in the public interest, but also that there was sufficient grounds to believe it would lead to criminal or disciplinary procedures against a member of the Garda and, as we mentioned earlier, would not relate to the general control of An Garda Síochána.

Devoid of any information that would allow us to conclude the result would be criminal disciplinary action, we could not open an investigation.

Fair enough. For the future of the organisation, this all needs to be looked at.

Mr. Peter Whelan

That will change.

It all needs to be looked at. I hope that, with the new legislation, it will be. If from a corporate point of view the new organisation does not consider this, we are at nothing. What happened in Limerick must never happen again, and what is happening at the moment must not happen again. The way these people are being treated is not acceptable.

To refer to what Deputy Dillon said, what happened in the coroner’s court is not acceptable. It is in the public domain, as said earlier. What happened was that a member of An Garda effectively found out he was being pursued at the coroner's court through the inquest procedure. That is not acceptable. The impact on his life and that of his family must be considered. The manner of communications in question must not be allowed. The man was not even charged. That is the reason I was able to bring it up in the Dáil. He was not charged at the time. There was a gap between the case being publicly known and his being charged. That is no way to operate. How did that happen? How was it allowed?

Mr. Hugh Hume

It is very difficult for us to answer that question. When our staff go there to give evidence, it is under the remit and control of the coroner’s court.

Surely the garda should have been told it was going to happen on the day.

Mr. Hugh Hume

I am not aware of any failure to communicate the decision.

Mr. Hume is not aware. Has he actually looked into it? It is in the public domain; I would not be able to refer to it otherwise. Could Mr. Hume find out? Did he not take an interest in finding out what happened? Saying he is not aware is not an answer. Whether he is aware or not, it should not happen. It puts the fear of God in some gardaí.

Mr. Peter Whelan

To talk about it broadly, there is no case where say anything publicly until, first, the DPP has told us whether there will be a charge and, if there is, what it is; second, without asking the DPP if it is okay to reveal it; and, third, without informing the garda or the representative he has nominated to be informed. Media reporting is one thing but what actually happens might be another. I do not want to talk about any case specifically, but we would never make a statement unless a garda’s representative or the garda knew what was coming.

So Mr. Whelan is basically saying that in respect of the coroner’s case in question, which is in the public domain, the garda and his representative were fully aware of what was going to happen.

Mr. Peter Whelan

The garda or his nominated representative would be aware before we would make any statement.

He was not aware of what he was being charged with, so how could he have been?

Mr. Peter Whelan

I do not want to talk about a particular case. In any case where a garda is being charged, the DPP would have to tell us the charges. We would not know until the DPP tells us because it is the DPP that prepares the charges. We cannot tell a garda what we do not know. When the DPP tells us-----

But GSOC can tell him he is going to be charged.

Mr. Peter Whelan

When the DPP tells us-----

Through the inquest process.

Mr. Peter Whelan

-----we will tell him or his representative.

I have a fair idea of what happened. It is quite obvious that the whole process needs to be changed completely and tightened up. Everyone can accept that. It cannot happen again.

The witnesses are very welcome. I have a very strong memory of the discussions that took place here on Templemore and the associated issues. The discussions took place in May 2017.

There are probably only about half a dozen issues that stand out from that Committee of Public Accounts and that is one of them. It took 12 weeks for the committee to write its report and then took six years and three months to send the results of the GSOC investigation, which is a public interest investigation, to the DPP. We have just heard it is part of what was raised here. Do the witnesses agree the public interest is not served by such a delay?

Mr. Hugh Hume

Yes. Obviously, we would prefer that it was dealt with in a far shorter timeline but there were a number of very unusual circumstances relating to this investigation that built in a more protracted nature to the investigation than we would have liked.

I got Mr. Justice MacCabe's letter of 16 November. It tells us a little bit of something that the witnesses might confirm. I have often spoken of the lack of resources available and acknowledged that has an impact on the ability of GSOC to do its work. Mr. Justice MacCabe referred to the complexity of the investigation and suggested there was not great co-operation between OLAF and GSOC and he had no control over that. That is very disappointing. Then the five gardaí were seconded from 2017, four of them to 2020 and one to 2019, before the case was concluded. Why were they withdrawn before the case was concluded? It is up to the Garda Commissioner to decide where resources go. Will the witnesses expand on that? Those gardaí continued to do some work, according to the letter, that they had been investigating and continued making court appearances. They were not full time; there was some work associated with that. What extent of their time was used on investigations or work other than what they were doing in relation to the Garda College? Their secondment ended before the investigation was completed. One or more gardaí who had not previously been involved in the investigation completed it. That seems less than satisfactory because somebody has to read themselves into the brief and all of that. It seems very ham-fisted. What is the relationship with the Garda Commissioner in terms of secondments? If you look at staffing levels, and these are counted in and moved in and out, that tells you something additional as well. Is there co-operation going on?

There is a second point related to this that I ask the witnesses to deal with. We heard through media reports of John Barrett, who was one of the people at these hearings and who was involved in human resources and people development with the Garda Commission. He took a significant risk and had the courage to bring this to public attention.

When it came to it, he was interviewed for just one hour by GSOC, yet he had a lot of correspondence. When someone is there who clearly has knowledge and could have assisted, why was that assistance not availed of? He made it clear he was available to provide further information. This might give us an insight into the workings between the gardaí, the Commissioner and GSOC. Will the witnesses address those issues, please?

Mr. Hugh Hume

I will talk about the first part first. For clarity, a new member of An Garda Síochána was not put in to review the file.

It was a member of GSOC who took over when the gardaí left GSOC. It was our senior investigating officer from GSOC who conducted a review and took the matter forward, so it is not like a new member of An Garda Síochána came in.

Was that person working on this case prior to that?

Mr. Hugh Hume

They had involvement in it, yes. The senior investigating officer, now deputy director - I spoke to the committee this morning about this - was involved throughout and presented the final report. It was they who presented the final report to the commission-----

Did that happen immediately after the secondment ended or was there a time lapse?

Mr. Hugh Hume

There was no time lapse that I am aware of. It was before our time - we were not physically in the building at that time - but my understanding is that that individual was involved in the investigation throughout and had some knowledge of it throughout. Additional investigating officers who had not been involved were brought in, but the lead individual-----

What is the relationship? Why were those seconded to this case withdrawn before the case was completed?

Mr. Hugh Hume

I cannot speak in detail to this because it is not a question I have asked. I do not want to speculate, but my understanding is that they had brought the case as far as was possible in terms of the gathering of evidence and the assessment of the material while we awaited the completion of the OLAF report. Again, I think it would be unfair to characterise the relationship with OLAF as unhelpful. It took until the tail end of 2021 for us to receive the report, but I do not think there was a bad relationship. It was just protracted. It was not in any way bad.

I am very short on time. The witnesses might respond to the question as to why the offer of additional information or discussion between the former HR director was not taken up.

Mr. Hugh Hume

I am afraid I cannot enlighten the Deputy on that. I do not have that level of detail around that interview. I do not know if Mr. Whelan has any knowledge, but I am not aware, having reviewed the file, of any gaps in the information provided. We can ask that question of the investigators and revert to the Deputy.

As regards the Garda Commissioner and the deployment or secondment of gardaí, GSOC makes a request. Is that request usually acceded to? Is it always acceded to? Is there friction there? What is the relationship?

Mr. Hugh Hume

As regards the relationship, this is, I think, the only time we are aware of that this has happened, that we have brought members of An Garda Síochána in under that specific legislation to assist and they were seconded and placed under our control. This was unique and spoke to the unique nature of the investigation, the particular skill sets required for the investigation and where we were in terms of resourcing at that time, when it came in. I therefore have nothing to benchmark this against bar this one case because it is the only time we have done that. We can talk about it on a practical basis. We receive support from An Garda Síochána as regards road traffic collisions, ballistics and forensics very regularly, but that is ad hoc and case-specific.

Obviously, the whole idea was that GSOC was set up so as there would be an independent investigation.

Mr. Hugh Hume

Absolutely

I want to move on to protected disclosures. At the end of 2022, after some disclosures were closed, GSOC still had 53 disclosures on hand. What is the number it has on hand at the moment that are still open?

Mr. Hugh Hume

Does Mr. Whelan have that figure?

Mr. Peter Whelan

Yes. In 2022, we received 18, and the number of actionable cases during that year was 87. On hand at the end of the year it was 53. We had closed 34. Then, in 2023, we had a big increase. We received 28 cases. The number of actionable cases was 81 that year. On hand-----

Does GSOC categorise those? Obviously, I am not pursuing details - I understand the legislation on this - but do they fall into particular categories, and whom do they come from?

Mr. Peter Whelan

They do. We have a small protected disclosure unit, so of-----

How many people are in that?

Mr. Peter Whelan

There are four investigators in intel, a senior investigating officer and an office manager. We are two short at the moment. We are finding it difficult to get people. We have gone to mobility at least twice, maybe three times.

We are finding it difficult to resource that unit.

When they come in, they are assessed. There is a very thorough assessment done of every case that comes in. On the basis of that, we pull out what the allegations are on the basis of what we think the allegations are at the beginning, because they can change as we go through the process. We prioritise.

How does GSOC categorise them?

Mr. Peter Whelan

They are all protected disclosures. That is the category, but then it is to look at what is being alleged really so it is on the basis of the allegations.

Does GSOC categorise what is alleged?

Mr. Peter Whelan

Yes.

Mr. Hugh Hume

The two main categories are criminal and discipline.

I thank Deputy Catherine Murphy and call Deputy Colm Burke.

I thank the witnesses for their presentations here this morning and for the issues they have dealt with already. They dealt with the complaints in respect of the recent riots. In relation to public protests overall, are there many complaints pending or have many been made in the past 12 months in relation to Garda attendance at public protests outside of the riots that were referred to earlier?

Mr. Hugh Hume

I not aware of any. Is Mr. Whelan aware of any?

Mr. Peter Whelan

I not aware of any. That is not to say there are not any, but they would be small in number. I can check that for the Deputy, but I am not aware of any.

The Garda publishes figures on use of force. It is about 1,000 per month. They have cases documented for use of force but we do not receive them.

In respect of complaints previously received, has there been any guidance issued to gardaí where GSOC would have come across scenarios where an issue could have been handled better? Has it arisen previously?

Mr. Peter Whelan

Guidance would be the Policing Authority working, rather than us, there.

I accept that but, from the outcome of investigations where complaints were filed against gardaí over their management of a particular protest, has it occurred previously, over, say, the past five years, where certain issues are identified where there was an overreaction by a member of the force and not dealt with in the appropriate way?

Mr. Peter Whelan

We can issue systemic recommendations if we feel that there is a systemic problem in relation to use of force. We have not issued any systemic recommendation. We have not seen it as a constant theme or problem.

It has not been a major issue in the past number of years. I will move on. In the one of the notes we got, there was a very small number of complaints internally in relation to theft or fraud. It is approximately 1%. Are there many complaints currently pending where there is an issue of misappropriation of funds within the Garda force? Is GSOC saying there is no case or is it saying-----

Mr. Peter Whelan

I am saying there is not many. Last year, we sent one file to the DPP, but I am not aware of any currently. That is a very specific question. I would have to look at the stats to see.

Is GSOC satisfied that there are adequate procedures within the various Garda stations? I suppose the reason I am raising this is I ended up doing a judicial review a number of years ago over a £20 note. When I am saying it was a £20 note, I am going back a good few years ago. A garda was dismissed from the force and I was involved in a judicial review and got him reinstated. I am wondering from the point of view of procedures. Obviously, proper procedures were not followed even though it went through a full Garda investigation, and he was still dismissed. I am wondering whether GSOC is satisfied that there are adequate procedures there to deal with issues like that within the force, and follow-on from complaints that come to GSOC.

Mr. Hugh Hume

I will take that. If it is an internal matter, if it is theft in a Garda station from gardaí, that would not come to us as a complaint because the gardaí cannot report a matter to us if they are the victims. That would be dealt with by the Garda Commissioner. Our complaints have to come from members of the public and we would seldom investigate a theft from a Garda station.

This was where a member of the public had made the payment and there was a member of the public involved. Currently, in relation to cases where there is misappropriation of funds, are there cases of complaints filed with GSOC in relation to that issue?

Mr. Hugh Hume

Yes. We get cases, and have had them over the years, of people saying money was stolen during a Garda search, money was stolen from them when they were in custody, or money was handed to a garda for safekeeping and then went missing.

A number of those cases are currently under investigation where property in the possession of An Garda Síochána was allegedly misappropriated.

Following on from that is the issue of the time it takes to carry out investigations. When a member of the Garda is under investigation, that goes on for a significant period. The figures in that regard have been provided. Mr. Hume is saying many of the cases are now dealt with in two years, but it is still quite a long period. Is GSOC under pressure in the context of the possibility that a person could claim it is taking an unreasonable period, such as two years, to carry out what might be a straightforward investigation? Why do these investigations take so long? When the Garda wishes to bring a prosecution, there are certain procedures and timelines, such as those relating to the District Court and so on. Why are there no timelines for bringing these investigations to a conclusion within an shorter timeframe?

Mr. Hugh Hume

There are a couple of issues there. First, the Deputy is correct regarding prosecutions before a court, but our investigations are not just on the criminal side. We may investigate a garda for a criminal matter and send a file to the DPP, who may decide not to prosecute. We then move into a discipline investigation. Under the current legislation, we have to the process all over again and commence a fresh investigation into the same behaviour. That can delay the investigation for a long period. In effect, we will have done two investigations: first, a criminal investigation and then a discipline one. The new legislation does away with that and allows us to have a single investigative process, which will reduce those timelines to the benefit of the complainant and the garda.

My understanding is that there is also a delay in the process when GSOC sends a file to the DPP and the DPP reverts to indicate it is not taking a prosecution.

Mr. Hugh Hume

I am not sure "delay" is the right word. It depends on the case. If a case is complicated as some of those mentioned today, it will take time because it has to be properly considered. Other cases come back very swiftly, however, particularly those involving straightforward allegations of assault or careless driving. There is no figure in that regard because it depends the complexity of the case in question.

Does Mr. Hume accept that the longer an investigation goes on, the more it undermines the member of the force?

Mr. Hugh Hume

Absolutely.

The member under investigation wants to get the deck cleared to move on with his or her life. If an investigation goes on for more than two or three years, that is really traumatic not only for the garda, but also for his or her family.

Mr. Hugh Hume

Absolutely. As was stated, in 2022 we opened 3,100-odd allegations against gardaí but we closed 2,400 of them because we decided the allegation was frivolous or vexatious or there was no case to answer. We did that as expeditiously as possible. Wherever possible, we are fair to members of An Garda Síochána.

Has GSOC examined the process in other jurisdictions? The witnesses have referred to improvements that are coming, but have they examined how the complaint process is dealt with in other jurisdictions? Does GSOC have something to learn from those jurisdictions in the context of ensuring investigations are carried out in the shortest time possible?

Mr. Justice Rory MacCabe

We had an independent look-back and look-forward conducted in the past couple of years on the way we do our work. Some changes we have made in the meantime, together with the streamlining of the work that is implicit in the new Act, will help. It is a simple formula. The processes are better now as a result of the work we have done and will be better because of the new Act. The only way to reduce the time it takes to complete investigations is to have more people on the job doing the work. It is simple enough, provided we get the processes right.

It is good to engage with the witnesses again. I thank them for the information they supplied. As has been said, GSOC is necessary. I understand the purpose of the organisation but, obviously, it is not perfect and the witnesses are striving to improve that. Mr. Justice MacCabe mentioned the 26 vacancies in the organisation. Given the issue that arose in the public domain in April last year, what new background checks are being carried out on individuals hired by GSOC? I am sure he will agree that whole episode was very embarrassing and damaging to its reputation.

Mr. Justice Rory MacCabe

It was surprising to us.

Yes, but it was surprising to many members of the public to see that this could have carried on in plain sight and, in theory, from what we have read, over a length of time. Given that GSOC is hiring new individuals, what new processes are in place to check their backgrounds?

Mr. Justice Rory MacCabe

It is customary for staff to be vetted and, at the moment, the vetting procedure is conducted on our behalf by the Garda-----

Is there anything new?

Mr. Justice Rory MacCabe

One thing that will be looked at in An Garda Síochána is ongoing, or in-service, vetting rather than just vetting to get in the door. That is something on which there is a shared interest between ourselves, An Garda Síochána and the Department of Justice.

On that issue, the individual involved, I have heard from Ms Logan, has since quit and we know that from the public commentary. Have all the cases in which that individual was involved been reviewed?

Mr. Justice Rory MacCabe

Yes, but the matter is now being dealt with by the Garda. There is a Garda investigation.

I understand, but I refer to internal reviews of what access the individual had and so on. Has that been thoroughly reviewed?

Mr. Justice Rory MacCabe

Yes.

Okay. That is important.

Mr. Whelan stated 80% of complaints are closed within two years. I submitted a parliamentary question on this issue in early December and I understand the 1,826 cases for 2022 was the fourth lowest figure GSOC has had in its existence. What is more worrying, however, is the actual numbers of cases that are outstanding. Forty-one cases, as I understand, remain open after two to three years, while there are 19 cases outstanding after three to four years and nine cases after four to five years. Does GSOC have the figures for how many Garda members each year are involved in those cases? Of the nine cases that were outstanding after four to five years, which is quite high, how many Garda members are involved?

Mr. Peter Whelan

I would not be able to tell the Deputy the number, and there are now six, not nine. There is certainly one Garda member in each case. As for whether there is more than one, I would have to check that case by case.

Mr. Whelan might send a note on that because it is of interest to me. As colleagues have mentioned, there is an impact, which the witnesses acknowledged, where complaints are made. Some of them are serious and obviously have to be investigated - I am not questioning that - but where a case has been outstanding for that length of time, that has an impact on the individual's career, on the complainant, if the complaint is true and accurate, and also on the organisation locally because, as Mr. Justice MacCabe said, the superintendent or the chief superintendent has to sign off on whether that individual can continue to serve in his or her current role. A note on that would be beneficial.

What impact will the new legislation have on those outstanding cases? I acknowledge what the witnesses said about there being a two-pronged approach, whether that is a criminal or internal investigation, but what will be the impact of the new legislation?

Mr. Hugh Hume

Does the Deputy mean for existing cases?

Yes. Will it have any bearing on them?

Mr. Hugh Hume

No. Once a case is admitted, it will stay in the current legislation process.

I am focusing in on the nine cases because that number is very high, given the length of time. I am not trying to belittle them as I know these are complex. Can Mr. Whelan give us a reason it would take that long?

Mr. Peter Whelan

There is a list of things that might happen in any one case. As Mr. Hume said earlier, the legislation requires us to complete a criminal investigation and then we might decide that there is no criminal case to answer. Only then can we transition into a disciplinary investigation. That takes an inordinate amount of time. The opposite is also true. If we start a disciplinary investigation and find a criminal offence, we have to finish the disciplinary investigation before we can proceed. In the new legislation, we will have a single investigative process, so that will help.

Another issue we have is waiting for information. The information may come from many sources so we sometimes have to wait, along with An Garda Síochána, for long periods. In the majority of cases where we look for information, it comes back reasonably quickly. However, in a small number of cases - and those may be the cases we see extended out - we are either waiting for information or we have had difficulties engaging with the complainants, the member or solicitors. There may be a coroner's inquest or we may be waiting on the DPP's decision or that of the court. Often the court will extend the time in which a case will be concluded. Digital downloads can also take quite an amount of time. That is why we have now formed our own digital investigations unit.

Mr. Hume made reference earlier to the fact that some complainants can be frivolous or vexatious. Of those cases, I think the figure Mr. Whelan gave was 3,000 complaints against An Garda Síochána in 2022 and of these, 2,000 had been closed off in a relatively short period of time, leaving the 1,826 cases. Is it the case that some individuals who, as we would term it, are known to gardaí, make several complaints about several gardaí on a regular basis? Each case still has to be investigated but where they are minor and frivolous, are they the kind of cases that get closed off quite quickly?

Mr. Peter Whelan

Yes.

Would they form the bulk of those on an annual basis?

Mr. Peter Whelan

They would. Of the 1,826 complaints, only 904 of them were admissible, which meant that there were some criteria that allowed us to not admit the rest of them.

Very good. I want to turn to previous matters which we have engaged on, including the statement on internal control. The witnesses will remember that we engaged on the ICT service delivery and there was a note specifically in these statements. Three of the findings had been addressed but one was outstanding. It was due be addressed in quarter 3. This was information and cybersecurity management capabilities of the organisation. Has that been resolved?

Ms Valerie Woods

Yes, that has been resolved.

All of those issues have been resolved. I want to turn to the issue of money spent. Not only is there concern about individuals who are hired by the organisation and the access they have to extremely sensitive information but the security spend for GSOC decreased from €364,000 in 2021 to €303,000. Why is that the case?

Ms Amanda McLoughlin

Our spend on security for 2021 included an upgrade of our CCTV system both internally and externally. For 2022, we did not have that spend. The current security costs for hiring a contractor to carry out full-time security is approximately €303,000. That is why we did not have that spend in 2022.

IT expenses have increased in the 12 months from 2021. What was the increase on that? Was that part of that resolution to-----

Ms Amanda McLoughlin

That is bringing in contractors to upgrade our cybersecurity policy practices. It also includes other internal services such as SharePoint development. That is where the increase came from.

Do investigators work remotely or from head office or is it a blended working environment?

Mr. Hugh Hume

It is a blended environment.

I imagine the capabilities are higher for those working for GSOC than for an ordinary Joe Punter working from home, given the sensitive access they have to information. Is that correct?

Mr. Hugh Hume

They cannot just log on to a computer and get access to our system. They must go through a series of authentications, which ensures the right person is accessing the information and every access to our investigation material is fully audited.

Does the new upgrade that has been done in respect of addressing those issues form part of those internal controls? Has this-----

Mr. Hugh Hume

I am not sure but I will check. These are the existing controls. I am not sure-----

They are reviewed anyway. That is what I am asking.

Mr. Hugh Hume

Yes, they are reviewed. They will be further enhanced as part of the new case management system, CMS, project, when we have that in place. Our number one priority is to enhance these controls further.

If he would not mind, I ask Mr. Whelan to come back to us with that note on the individuals involved in those cases. I would appreciate that. I thank the Cathaoirleach.

I thank the Deputy. We will suspend the meeting for ten minutes.

Sitting suspended at 11:06 a.m. and resumed at 11.15 a.m.

We are ready to resume. The next speaker is Deputy O'Connor.

I thank the Chairman and welcome everybody. The particular of facet of interest for me with GSOC rotates around the increase in the number of disciplinary investigations into members of An Garda Síochána. There are two facets to this and some of this has been discussed this morning. The first element is that some of these are handled by An Garda Síochána internally. According to those figures, the number of non-supervised cases by GSOC rose to 256 in 2017 and then hover around that figure. It dropped to 199 and then 250 in 2020. What is of concern is that a huge number of complaints is going in. There are 14,000 members of An Garda Síochána currently, which has dropped from 14,750. Of that figure, approximately 11,500 are on the beat in uniform and 2,400 are detectives. However, in 2020, as we know from our briefings, the number of complaints to GSOC stood at 1,826. That gives an indication there is a huge amount of dissatisfaction among certain sectors of society. We have the breakdown of those areas of complaint. Some 27% of them relate to roads policing arrests and 2% relate to public order but we are in this context where there is a retention crisis in An Garda Síochána. A total of 62 extensions of service have been granted to members. The numbers have dropped back under 14,000, unfortunately, from a height of 14,750. At the same time, there is a correlation with the fact the investigations into gardaí through GSOC have trebled in the past five years. With that, the investigation period has gone from 115 days in 2017 up to 366 in 2022.

Issues around vacancies have been pointed out as potential causes. In the case of a member of the force who is under investigation, as a public representative it is utterly unacceptable that this should be allowed to occur because of the stress it creates for people.

I regularly speak to members of An Garda Síochána as a Deputy for Cork East. We meet them at the gates of Leinster House every morning. There is huge fear of them doing the wrong thing and what the consequences may be. Some may point to the current Commissioner, but this is just as bad of an issue in terms of what has been brought to my attention by gardaí regarding the fear they have of doing their job. They should be able to walk the streets without fear or favour and do their job, which is protecting us from danger and enforcing the law.

There are highly concerning figures around the jump in the investigation period. Obviously, there is wrong and right and the process of an investigation is to identify that. The period of time involved is utterly unacceptable. The witnesses are aware this is an issue for the Garda and public. What is being done to address it? The statistics show things are going very rapidly in one direction and that is of huge concern.

Mr. Peter Whelan

In 2022, we started a process of an internal examination of how we do our business. We developed strategic priorities so that we could allocate cases at the right level for sign off and closure. We did a business process review. We delegated authority, devolved decision-making, set up a digital forensic unit, trained specialist interviewers and brought in more investigators. The figure of 366 mentioned by the Deputy has been reduced in 2023 to 224. There has been a marked decrease in the time involved, having done that exercise. The figure of 320 in 2022 for disciplinary investigations has dropped to 220. We have created a lot of efficiencies. However, as the judge said, we can only work within the resources we have available to us. We are almost as efficient as we can be with the resources we have.

Is that significant? I am trying to get to the bottom of this. The current figure for those under disciplinary investigations is 220. The original figure I quoted was from 2017, when the figure was 115. Mr. Whelan has said the system is at absolute capacity.

Mr. Peter Whelan

We have achieved all of the efficiencies given the resources we have at the moment, pending more resources and additional specialist units, which is what required. Our digital forensics unit had a wait of two years at times in order to download a phone. We now do that within two weeks.

The digital forensics unit is interesting. Is it a unit within the special detective unit, SDU, in the Garda?

Mr. Peter Whelan

No, we have developed our own unit.

It is internal. Does GSOC do its own internal checks for inbound new staff who are being vetted?

Mr. Peter Whelan

No, it is all with the Garda. It carries out the vetting process.

In terms of the vetting process, what is involved in that? Is it a case of getting a simple Garda clearance certificate? Are there more forensic checks in the background in terms of the personnel that are coming in, in light of what was raised by Deputy Devlin?

Mr. Peter Whelan

It is the normal Garda vetting. At the higher posts, there is also security clearance.

Ms Valerie Woods

It is the standard Civil Service vetting process, plus an additional layer of security clearance.

I want to ask what is, from my perspective, a genuinely interesting question which is worth asking. Those working in GSOC are dealing with critically sensitive information involving a range of issues around enforcement in the Garda. Do the witnesses believe the current system as it stands is fit for purpose? Does it need to be improved, in terms of whether we do background checks on people occupying incredibly serious positions in GSOC or An Garda Síochána? How does that work from an intelligence perspective in terms of protecting sensitive information in the State so that it does not get into the wrong hands, whether that is people involved in drug dealing or organised crime? How do we protect that information more sensitively, in light of what has been brought to our attention?

Mr. Hugh Hume

I think all of us, including the gardaí, agree with the in-service vetting to which Mr. Justice MacCabe has referred. For the vetting new recruits receive when they come into the force to be the end of it for the totality of their employment is not good practice. Both the commission and the Garda would welcome more regular reviews of security vetting to ensure nothing has arisen to cause concern. There is a capacity issue within the Garda, which is the sole agency delivering that vetting. It is a matter for the Garda but across the justice sector, that would be seen as a positive step forward.

I will return to the original line of questioning. I thank Mr. Whelan for his response and the information he provided. In light of the need for additional resources, has GSOC had a conversation with the Department of Justice?

Mr. Peter Whelan

We have. Grant Thornton did an independent review of the service before we transition to the new Bill. It outlined figures that we have used as the basis of our business case, which we have sent to the Department.

When was that business case lodged with the Department?

Ms Valerie Woods

It was lodged in the middle of last year. It was in July last year.

It was lodged in July last year.

Ms Valerie Woods

It was lodged for the 2024 Estimates process.

The business case arrived in the Department in July last year. To deal with further issues relating to the backlog and getting waiting times down to their previous levels, have the witnesses estimates for the number of additional staff that will be required? Is it a case of filling the currently vacancies within the organisation?

Mr. Peter Whelan

In its review, Grant Thornton did a benchmarking exercise with similar agencies in other jurisdictions. Those agencies' investigators have two to six cases per investigator. The review recommended that GSOC would have ten cases per investigator. At the moment, we have approximately 20 cases per investigator. That crude figure alone suggests we need to double the number of investigators we have. At the moment, we have 29 investigators and one investigator who is acting up and they are supported by nine assistant investigating officers. We do not have the capacity to do the level of work required in a more timely manner.

It is not palatable for members of the Garda for these backlogs to be as high as they are. Members who are under investigation are put under strain and stress. As I said, it is about differentiating between right and wrong and I accept the need for the work GSOC does. However, when a considerable number of gardaí are leaving the force, for financial and other reasons, delays should be a big item of concern, as I assume they are. We are concerned.

Mr. Peter Whelan

To carry that level of workload on a continual basis also creates a considerable amount of stress within our organisation.

I will refer back to the issues of budgeting and staffing. I agree with previous speakers. My experience is that we hear a lot of complaints from rank-and-file gardaí about the pressure they feel if an investigation is under way. They may be suspended or other things may happen pending the outcome of the investigation. It puts a cloud over them and puts them in a difficult situation from the point of view of their careers, families and communities. It is important for that to be dealt with.

At the moment, GSOC has 23 vacancies. According to Grant Thornton, there is a need for 180 extra staff. At the moment, there is a total of 160 staff. How many of those are investigators?

Mr. Peter Whelan

We have 29 investigators plus one staff member who is acting up for a total of 30 at the moment.

Would GSOC need 60 investigators?

Mr. Peter Whelan

Yes.

Would it need more than 60?

Mr. Peter Whelan

Yes.

Are the investigators people who served as members of the Garda?

Mr. Peter Whelan

We have four such people.

Ms Valerie Woods

There are some former gardaí.

What background do the rest of them have?

Mr. Peter Whelan

It is a mixture. Some have come from the Defence Forces, some are from other regulatory agencies and others are from police forces abroad.

Are legal people and solicitors involved?

Mr. Peter Whelan

They are not involved as investigators. We have an in-house legal team.

I was not thinking about them offering legal advice. I was wondering if any investigators come from the legal profession.

Mr. Peter Whelan

There is one. We have one investigator with legal qualifications.

GSOC does not have the staff to carry out investigations in a timely manner. That is clear. It is at about half capacity.

Some members of the public would raise the matter of former members of the Garda being involved in an investigation on behalf of GSOC. Would GSOC find any difficulties around that or any conflict around judging performance?

Mr. Peter Whelan

If there is a potential conflict of interest or if a serving investigating officer knew of any of the gardaí involved in any of our cases, they would not take on the case or be involved in it in any way.

That is good if it is made clear. On interactions with the Garda, as head of operations is Mr. Whelan happy with the level of co-operation he gets from - I suppose it is mainly middle management gardaí - on investigations he is carrying out?

Mr. Peter Whelan

Mainly we deal with chief superintendents and assistant and deputy commissioners. We get very good co-operation 99% of the time. There is a small number of cases where we might like things to happen faster or to get access to information. They are small in number but are important investigations.

Are there situations where GSOC feels it is being obstructed or there is undue delay?

Mr. Peter Whelan

We have had situations where we have had to go to the court for a judicial decision as to whether we should get access to information or not. That obviously-----

That takes time and money.

Mr. Peter Whelan

-----increases the time, yes.

Hopefully there are not too many cases like that. Would Mr. Whelan say in 80% or 90% of cases the level of co-operation is okay?

Mr. Peter Whelan

Yes.

There is a level of difficulty in some others. In what percentage would Mr. Whelan feel he is being obstructed or stonewalled?

Mr. Peter Whelan

They are very small in number.

Is it 1% or 2%?

Mr. Peter Whelan

If is difficult to give a figure but in terms of cases it would be a very small number.

In terms of power, does GSOC rely on the courts? That is a long and costly process.

Mr. Peter Whelan

We have a procedure in place, called the Gearain process, where we make applications through the Gearain Office in the Garda to get information. We have agreed timeframes in which we get that information. If it goes beyond 30 days, we escalate and send a letter. If it goes beyond 60 days, we escalate again and I send it. If it goes beyond that, we get the commission to escalate it with the gardaí. We have an escalation procedure where we feel we are not getting information in a timely manner.

Is GSOC in need of new powers in this regard?

Mr. Peter Whelan

The new Act will be useful.

In policing and security generally, the transition to Fiosrú is a big change. It is not just a name change but a fundamental change. What are the three most important changes that will bring about?

Mr. Peter Whelan

The most important from an operational point of view are the incidents of concern. We will no longer need to have a complaint. If the Commissioner becomes aware of an allegation of notifiable misconduct or criminal offence, he now has to notify us. We make a decision then on whether we take the case or not. We will not be reading in the paper anymore about cases gardaí have taken against other gardaí in court. We will receive all of those. That is substantial and is also a substantial amount of work.

The second thing is the local intervention process is at the moment an informal process where we send back low-level, service-level complaints. They all now have to go through an admissibility process. That adds quite substantial numbers to our admissibility process.

Prior to the new Act, what were the two or three biggest deficiencies in GSOC's powers, in relation to the legislation that was there? Where were the biggest gaps?

Mr. Peter Whelan

The single investigative process will be hugely significant. We do not have the power to do a single investigation at the moment. We have to finish at criminal and then go to disciplinary. It will change our whole way of operating if we can go to a single investigation process. At some stage, because of the way evidence is gathered, we will have to decide if a case is criminal, disciplinary or both and then have to gather evidence in the appropriate manner.

The incidents of concern will make a huge difference to us. There are a few other big items in there that will make a difference to us. We have now built in a review process for inadmissible decisions and the discontinuance of investigations. Now, anybody can come in and say they want the decision reviewed that their complaint was inadmissible or that they want a review if we have closed an investigation. We do not have either of those processes in place at the moment and that is something new that will happen.

It will allow for a seamless transition on a case from one type of investigation to another.

Mr. Peter Whelan

It will.

That is okay. Does Mr. Whelan feel that hampered GSOC's work a lot?

Mr. Peter Whelan

Yes, definitely.

What kind of timeline is there in terms of bringing about the new entity and the major reforms that will happen?

Mr. Peter Whelan

We have heard the new Act is to come into effect 1 July, so we have to be ready for that date. There is a huge amount of work at the moment. It is absorbing a huge amount of people's time within the organisation, but we are trying to aim to be as ready as we can be for that date.

To finish my response to the previous question, the one other big change is the definition of death or serious harm. If we get a referral of death or serious harm, we shall investigate – we do not have a choice. We got 41 in 2022 from the Commissioner. That definition is expanded now to include sexual offences and the abuse of power for sexual gain. That could bring in a whole new number of complaints that have to be investigated. They are normally very complex and lengthy investigations.

Just on that, the organisation has 29 investigators - it surprised me that the number is so low given that there are 160 staff. I understand the organisation has a lot of other roles to be filled, including supporting roles in administration and management, but it seems the main job of the organisation is to investigate and there are fewer than 30 investigators out of 160 staff. Mr. Justice MacCabe might like to comment on this. It strikes me that there is an imbalance there. That is GSOC's call. It can decide how it manages staff and the number of staff needed in different positions. On the face of it, it would seem like a huge imbalance and that there should be a greater number of investigators. Does Mr. Justice MacCabe see that? Is there a problem recruiting such staff?

Mr. Justice Rory MacCabe

There is no doubt there is a problem recruiting them and it is not going to get any better. As I have said in the past-----

Why is there a problem?

Mr. Justice Rory MacCabe

-----independent oversight is a relatively new concept throughout the public and private sectors. It is now happening in the private sector. Insurance companies and banks all have oversight agencies. Then we have the health service and the Environmental Protection Agency. These are all people who are fishing in the same pool that we are fishing in for investigators. We might be able to get somebody who is an experienced investigator. We might get somebody who is from the South African police force or from Canada or wherever but ultimately to solve the problem we are going to have to look at a situation where there are third level education programmes or apprenticeship programmes for training investigators so that we have a readier pool. Otherwise, it is going to be-----

That is going to take time though.

Mr. Justice Rory MacCabe

It is of course going to take time.

There is an immediate issue here. We have already discussed the number of cases that are outstanding.

Ms Emily Logan

I might add something because I think the Chair is perhaps getting a slightly distorted view. If we just look at the totality of the expenditure that is the responsibility of the commission, how much we are determining of our €19 million budget to the pathway of the complaint from when it comes in, which is what we were asked about earlier, local intervention, disciplinary procedures, and who is making those decisions – Mr. Whelan is absolutely right: there are dedicated people with the title of "investigators" but in terms of the overall resources given to complaints that come from the public right up to and including investigations, Ms McLoughlin or Ms Woods can give the committee the expenditure.

Ms Valerie Woods

There are 112.6 full-time equivalents in the operations directorate, including case workers.

I think it was acknowledged here that there is a shortage of actual investigators and a problem recruiting them. I also want to put a follow-on question.

Has GSOC, through the Department of Justice, fed this into the Department of further and higher education? One of the things that niggles at me - hardly a week goes by without us dealing with it - is that we are awful in this State at workforce planning and pipelines, whether that is not having enough plumbers or electricians trained for the construction industry, for example, or not having enough occupational therapists and speech and language therapists for the health services. Ms Logan is aware of this from her previous incarnation. GSOC wants and needs more staff but it is not able to attract new staff or even retain the staff it currently has. What is being done to rectify that? This issue is central to how we do our business in this State, right across public bodies and the public sector. It is about identifying the gaps and trying to fix them now. It may take three or four years to do so. Trained staff cannot be magicked up overnight. Has contact been made with the Department of further and higher education on this matter?

Mr. Justice Rory MacCabe

We have certainly made contact with the Department of Justice on it. The Departments of Public Expenditure, NDP Delivery and Reform and Further and Higher Education, Research, Innovation and Science are aware of the problem. In fact, according to a press report published last year, the Ministers, Deputies Harris and Donohoe, stated that consideration was being given to a public service apprenticeship programme for junior investigators specifically in GSOC. To that extent, they are aware of the problem.

GSOC needs to be more active in following up on what action is being taken. If it has looked for something, it should ascertain what is happening in that regard and whether progress is being made. That is important. I ask that GSOC follow up in that way. The committee should be making a recommendation that the issue needs to be fixed. There is a problem there.

I will bring in Ms Kennelly, principal officer at the Department of Justice, on this issue. What follow-up has there been by the Department with the Department of further and higher education? Things go round and round in this country. If we do not address this, there will still be a shortage ten years from now. There is a problem here that we have to fix.

Ms Sarah Kennelly

I am not aware of the current status of the consideration of that apprenticeship but I am happy to find out and provide a note to the committee on it.

Okay. I ask Ms Kennelly to convey the importance of the matter to the Secretary General-----

Ms Sarah Kennelly

Absolutely, yes.

-----and send a response to the committee on it. All morning, we have identified problems, such as those relating to the eight or nine complaints that took between four and five years, the number of complaints coming in and the timeline to deal with them. I understand the process takes time. There are things that cannot be rushed and it takes time to get information and evidence and all that, but it is clear this is a fundamental problem at the heart of GSOC and the process. There is a new Act but it will not be worth the paper it is written on if the tools to implement it are not provided. It is not fair to GSOC, gardaí who have complaints against them or members of the public who are trying to get a decision and an outcome. It is really important that we address this issue. I ask that it be raised at senior level in the Department and that the Department responds to us on it as soon as it can.

Ms Sarah Kennelly

Absolutely. We value and appreciate the importance of resourcing GSOC and the new organisation. We are committed to working with GSOC on that and have significantly increased resources in recent years. We will keep working on that with GSOC.

Mr. Hugh Hume

Mr. Justice MacCabe referred to the fact that we have been proactive around the educational aspect. Ms McLoughlin and Ms Woods are currently involved in the procurement process to look for a third level institution that will support the development of our staff and thereby make us an employer of choice. That will attract people to come and have a professional qualification linked to working in GSOC.

We are supported financially in that through the Department. We are being proactive in this regard and seeking a graduate educational system.

What salary are investigators on? What is the average salary?

Ms Amanda McLoughlin

The investigation officers are on the salary scale of the HEO grade.

How much is that?

Ms Amanda McLoughlin

The bottom of the scale might be about €54,000 at the minute. I am not entirely sure.

Fifty-four thousand euro to how much?

Ms Amanda McLoughlin

I am not actually sure of the range. Does Ms Woods have the information?

Ms Valerie Woods

I do not have it on me.

Would it be between €54,000 and €70,000.

Ms Amanda McLoughlin

It would be in that range.

Ms Valerie Woods

Probably €65,000.

Mr. Peter Whelan

Could I say, so as not to mislead, that we have six other investigators in the protected disclosure unit? They do not draw from the bigger pool of complaints; they just do protected disclosures.

It is like a garage without enough mechanics, with a queue of cars outside and no one to fix them.

Mr. Peter Whelan

We have no Mercedes anyway.

I know that but Mr. Whelan knows the point I am making.

I will now bring in members for a second round of questioning. Each member will have seven minutes and we will see how we get on. We could have some latecomers.

My first comment is for Mr. Justice MacCabe, in particular. We are dancing on the head of a pin a bit. A number of us have expressed concerns. I accept 100% that there are resource issues. I actually have an issue with the quality of investigators. I have a concern in this regard, I must say out straight. I appreciate what has been said by Mr. Hume and others on funnelling people through, but I do have a concern. Gardaí should not suffer because of the quality of investigators.

There is an issue in An Garda at the moment. It manifested itself during the Dublin riots, as I have said before. There is a circle of confidence, a quarter of which involves GSOC. I would really appreciate it if all the witnesses took on board the themes we are raising here today, considering that I have to dance on the head of the pin as regards specifics. We need change in the new organisation. We need quality and we also need consistency. The last one is a big issue for me.

I want to ask for some data. There is no need to reply to my questions as the answers may be supplied in writing. How many vexatious cases have been taken up by GSOC over the past five years? I want the number for each year and the outcomes.

Mr. Hugh Hume

So we can be clear, could the Deputy-----

I am referring to cases that GSOC pursued that it felt were vexatious and should not have been taken by a member of the public.

Mr. Hugh Hume

Twelve.

I do not want the answers now. They may be supplied in writing, if that is okay, because I want the details by year for the past five years.

What was the number of internal investigations based on cases that were taken? How many were there in each of the past five years, and what was the outcome in each case? I am referring to where GSOC felt the need to investigate somebody internally as a result of their activities on files or otherwise.

Third, considerable time has been spent on cases in Limerick. For each of the past five years, namely 2023, 2022, 2021, 2020 and 2019, I want the total number of GSOC man-hours spent on cases from Limerick alone. I want the information because I want to quantify how many hours were devoted to each case and the cost to the Exchequer.

Were PSNI officers brought down to do interview training techniques with GSOC staff? If so, why was it necessary? The witnesses might reply to that in writing.

On the next issue, I want to put on the record the issue around John Barrett and how he has been treated has been bad, although not necessarily all to do with GSOC. However, the investigation that GSOC carried out in Templemore, which Deputy Murphy referred to, was just a tick-the-box exercise. This man spent days in this room and he was interviewed by GSOC for one hour. That is incomprehensible. It is a stain on GSOC because we would not have been investigating that issue only for the man. At one hour, it was nothing other than a tick-the-box exercise. I ask all three of the commissioners to reflect on that because that does not stand up to any form of scrutiny.

I want to get GSOC's view on the following hypothetical situation. I want to know what is the bar or threshold for launching a public interest investigation. Hypothetically, a judge in a case finds that gardaí in pursuant of a case being taken by GSOC did not behave in the appropriate manner, that is, warrants were not done properly or other information was not provided appropriately, etc. I ask Mr. Justice MacCabe what is the threshold for a public interest investigation by GSOC and would that meet the threshold whereby a judge says that such behaviour by the Garda was not correct, was not appropriate, etc.?

Mr. Justice Rory MacCabe

I would like to be certain on that so I will put that in the mix with the reply that the Deputy wants.

Sorry, this question is not one for a written reply. It is one for oral response.

Mr. Hugh Hume

Can I try to bridge that?

No. I am addressing it to Mr. Justice MacCabe.

Mr. Justice Rory MacCabe

I am going to ask my commissioner, who is more expert in this than me, to deal with that to make sure the Deputy gets the right answer.

Mr. Hugh Hume

As a commission, we operate collectively and we all have shared experience around this. As I mentioned earlier, the first test for us is that the behaviour of the Garda member would amount to a breach of discipline or a criminal offence. That is the first test. We must have that belief that, if proven, would amount to that and that it is in the public interest to investigate the matter.

In terms of the public interest, we have a number of different categories which we assess against.

Hypothetically, if the judge criticises gardaí who are conducting an investigation, say, who did not pursue warrants correctly and did not provide information that was quite obvious for the prosecution, etc., would that not cross the threshold?

Mr. Hugh Hume

I could not comment because it is all to do with context, whether it an omission or a deliberate act.

Would it be a concern?

Mr. Hugh Hume

Of course, it would be a concern, yes. We see referrals from superintendents in districts notifying us of adverse judicial comments, and we have cases. They have been referred to us because of adverse judicial comments.

If judges themselves make comments like this, obviously, GSOC would not need referrals.

Mr. Hugh Hume

We would have to witness it to be aware of it.

It is in the public courts.

Mr. Hugh Hume

We have the power under the Act if we are aware of it.

How would GSOC not be aware of something that is in the courts in Ireland involving gardaí?

Mr. Hugh Hume

We do not have an active monitoring unit. We do not monitor these live. Somebody would have to bring it to our attention.

Is this credible, Chair? Seriously.

The Deputy may want to put another question.

I know, but the public are watching this. If something appears inside in a court in Ireland where An Garda Síochána has been pursuing an investigation based on a recommendation of GSOC, etc., it is up in court and the judge then states that the way in which warrants and other issues were dealt with by gardaí was completely wrong, how in the name of God would GSOC not be aware of that?

Mr. Hugh Hume

Sorry, maybe I am misunderstanding the Deputy. Is the Deputy saying it is a GSOC investigation this is happening with?

Yes. How would GSOC not be aware of a judge criticising the processes by which gardaí have done their business? How would that not come to GSOC's attention?

Mr. Hugh Hume

In general, there are so many courts going on in the land we would not be aware of every comment that would be made by a judge, but if it did come to our attention and it was indicative of a criminal or disciplinary matter, we would consider it.

Every utterance we make here is provided to us in some format.

Where there is a criticism of some members of An Garda Síochána, that it would not be brought to GSOC's attention given the organisation it is and so that it could fulfil its remit, particularly under that component of public interest, is beyond my comprehension.

Mr. Hugh Hume

We do not monitor every court. I think I am misunderstanding-----

GSOC does not have to monitor the courts. The media will do it for GSOC.

Mr. Hugh Hume

Sorry, that is perhaps my misunderstanding. If we became aware of it from the media and it was identified, yes. There are cases. I can tell the Deputy of cases where we identified, through the media, behaviour that we found potentially in breach of the public interest and we have made inquiries to take that forward. We would certainly consider it, if it was brought to our attention and if it was in the media.

I call Deputy Catherine Murphy.

I have four questions, so I am looking for quite succinct responses. I refer to the 20 cases per caseload at present. Is there sanction to go beyond that and what was it at its highest? What is the ratio of support staff per investigator?

Ms Emily Logan

I certainly know the figure when Mr. Hume and I were appointed in February 2021. The staff were reporting caseloads of between 50 and 60. As the committee will have heard Mr. Peter Whelan say, it is now 20, and the Grant Thornton report suggests that it should be ten.

Is there sanction to go towards ten?

Ms Emily Logan

That is what we are aiming for.

GSOC has not got sanction to go beyond the caseload of 20.

Mr. Justice Rory MacCabe

We have sanction for no additional investigators.

Okay. What is the ratio of support staff per investigator?

Mr. Hugh Hume

It depends what the Deputy means by support staff. There are a number of people supporting investigations. There are about 5.5 clerical officers within the investigations department. They are supported from across the whole organisation in different ways but there are 5.5 dedicated to supporting.

It is merely to get some sort of an idea.

Mr. Hugh Hume

Below the investigators, there are assistant investigating officers as well. They do basic tasks to support those 30 investigators.

We often get material in here and it is more like we are the public accountability committee rather than the Committee of Public Accounts. With the number of inadmissible complaints, I suspect that GSOC is maybe not completely understood by the public. Is there a public information campaign around that? It would strike me that if GSOC reduced the inadmissible cases, it may well be able to focus to a greater degree on the cases that need to be dealt with. Is GSOC doing that?

Ms Emily Logan

The Deputy is absolutely right. There is a significant amount of preparatory work going on in relation to implementing the Act, which now obliges the new organisation, Fiosrú, to carry out an information campaign, if you like. There is a positive obligation to inform the public and explain to the public, and increase the public's understanding of the role of the organisation. There are two things. One is the branding. Branding was referred to earlier. In all sorts of ways, a campaign of branding needs to happen. Engagement with external stakeholders includes the public, the Garda, the people who are affected by our work and a new website. There is a whole range of things that are being done.

GSOC is aware of that.

In relation to the protection disclosures, as I want to go back to that, where did the majority of protected disclosures come from? Did they come from the gardaí themselves?

Mr. Hugh Hume

They come from the Garda workforce, obviously. They have to come from the Garda workforce. The workforce, though, is a broad term. It includes Garda members and civilian support staff but it can also be contractors, theoretically, who are working on a temporary basis inside in the Garda.

Does Mr. Hume know the ratio?

Mr. Hugh Hume

Ninety-odd per cent would be sworn Garda members. That is ballpark, but there is only a few that I can think of would not be.

I will now ask about the non-pay element of GSOC's budget. Obviously, the bulk of that goes on the accommodation. GSOC has accommodation in Dublin and Cork. It is leased accommodation. In the event of there being sanction for additional staffing, will that accommodation be sufficient? Is it future-proofed and is there a break clause in it?

Ms Emily Logan

The people who have done all the work on this include Ms Amanda McLoughlin. There is a huge amount of work going on with regard to that.

Ms Amanda McLoughlin

I will talk about the accommodation aspect. Obviously we are anticipating that we will have an increase in staff over the coming years. We are implementing the shared workspace programme in our Dublin office, which will accommodate a big increase in staff. Most of our staff are on a blended working pattern, where they do a couple of days a week in the office and a couple of days at home. We are confident that our current office will accommodate that.

We are in year 17 of a 25-year lease in the Dublin office, so we, along with the new ombudsman and chief executive officer, are going to have to look at what we are going to do in the future with regard to that office. There is no break clause for that lease. That is where we are with regard to our Dublin office.

In our Cork office, we are in year six of a ten-year lease, and we also have a good bit of space in that office to utilise.

I want to go back to the types of admissible complaints. One of them is discourtesy. Presumably, that is the kind of thing that goes directly back to the Garda. Does GSOC then follow up to see that there is training to address some of the issues, or is that just something that is left exclusively to the Garda itself?

Mr. Hugh Hume

I can talk a bit to that. Discourtesy could fall into a number of different areas. It could end up in our local intervention scheme, where a Garda member is spoken to by an inspector. It is not actually investigated; it is more between the complainant and the gardaí, where they come to some resolution. The Deputy is right that it could go back to a Garda SIO to investigate and make recommendations, if it was a very low-level discourtesy. However, if there was any indication that the discourtesy was accompanied by any unpleasant behaviour linked to protected characteristics or any sort of bias, then we would potentially retain that and investigate it ourselves.

There is a broad range. The Garda SIO is required to report back to us on the outcome of its findings and if we identify ongoing trends, we would issue a systemic recommendation around those behaviours. We have done so in the past, based on behaviours we have seen across a broad range of wrongdoing.

On protected disclosures again, obviously when a case is closed and findings are made, you have to go back then, for example, when some issues have to be picked up by the Garda itself. What follow-through is there with regard to changes that would be made internally within the Garda? I do not understand where the relationship would be then in how it is picked up following the closure of a complaint that has a basis to it.

Mr. Hugh Hume

If there was a basis to it, then I would like to hope that we would issue a recommendation to the Garda Commissioner for discipline, bearing in mind that a protected disclosure that we undertake could end up going to the DPP. It could decide whether to prosecute or not. We may take a protected disclosure to the Commissioner and ask them to consider a discipline action, or it may end up, as the Deputy rightly said, as a systemic recommendation for change. All of those are potential outcomes, as well as discontinuance because it could not be progressed.

If we make a systemic recommendation for change, we would write to the Garda Commissioner and set out what we expect to happen, as we do with all our systemic recommendations. We should get a reply back explaining what has happened and what they intend to do on the matter. We share our systemic recommendations with a number of different oversight bodies, so that they can track any changes we think are appropriate.

I presume they share it with the Minister as well.

Mr. Hugh Hume

Yes, they certainly would share it with the Minister for Justice and the Policing Authority.

I want to touch on a few points around the Dublin riots. GSOC had the powers to open a public interest investigation. With regard to the riots, it is clear from video footage, news bulletins and individual members of the Garda that a number of gardaí were left in very dangerous situations.

One was left on his own in a van that was surrounded by people who threatened to set it on fire. Another garda was standing near O'Connell Bridge surrounded by a crowd attacking him. He did not seem to have a baton or anything else. Two gardaí cycled into the middle of it and had to escape into a public house or hotel for safety. I saw on video footage that one or two of their bicycles were thrown into the River Liffey. I understand it can be difficult to manage large public order events, but there was another clip showing six members of the public order unit standing across a wide street, facing a crowd of what looked like several hundred. If even a small number of them had tried to break through, they would not have been able to stop them because there were gaps of yards between the gardaí and they had no backup whatsoever.

Everything cannot be foreseen, but that has been building up for a long time. There were a lot of complaints by public representatives, business associations and local residents in the weeks and months before. On the evening in question, from the early afternoon it was clear online. I was not watching it but it came out afterwards that it was clear that online there were people whipping people up for a major confrontation with An Garda Síochána and for carrying out violence in the centre of Dublin city. I would have expected Garda management to have someone monitoring social media. If it did, what happened? Why were those warning bells not taken heed of?

There was also an issue with deployment. Some gardaí told me that some of their colleagues who were not on duty just went there. They were not called up by anyone. They got a message from a friend in the force and just drove into the city, some from other counties, to try to help to ensure public safety and protect member of An Garda Síochána. On the face of it, it looks as though management of An Garda Síochána was absent. It was chaotic. I understand that the situation was chaotic and volatile. I am trying to preface my point with that, but individual members of An Garda Síochána on the ground were left with an awful situation. I have heard many people complaining about it. Individual members of An Garda Síochána have certainly told me there was an absence of planning for an event that was almost certain to happen, there was an absence of any kind of deployment, an absence of co-ordination. From GSOC's point of view, as the body that oversees An Garda Síochána, takes complaints and has the power to open a public interest investigation, has it considered doing so?

Mr. Hugh Hume

We are one of the bodies that oversees An Garda Síochána.

I am asking GSOC specifically. No one else is here today.

Mr. Hugh Hume

I know, but in terms of the collective oversight powers, for us to open a public interest investigation, we would have to believe that there were criminal or disciplinary breaches by members of An Garda Síochána. We would be looking at saying that management had committed a disciplinary offence. We are aware the Minister has written to the Policing Authority to ask it to carry out a review of issues relating to the Dublin riots and the Garda Síochána Inspectorate has previously reviewed the command control and social media monitoring of what happened at An Cosán and other incidents. My gut feeling is that there is a basis for a systemic review of planning and preparation and not for an individual examination of management failures. That would be best left-----

On the evening, it was clear that there was a complete breakdown in the planning and management of the force. I understand that for GSOC to carry out an investigation of the Commissioner, it must have clearance from the Minister.

Have you considered seeking that?

Mr. Hugh Hume

No.

From the point of view of public safety as well as the safety of gardaí, we have a problem here. Have you considered investigating the actions of senior management on the day, or their lack of action?

Mr. Hugh Hume

No.

How do you see this being handled? What process is going to be used to deal with this?

Mr. Hugh Hume

The Minister has taken the approach of asking the Policing Authority to review the riots. I have not seen the exact terms of reference for that but as I understand it, the Policing Authority is to carry out some sort of review of those events.

Will you be making an observation to the authority?

Mr. Hugh Hume

We meet with the Policing Authority on a regular basis to exchange information and to discuss trends and emerging issues. Certainly, we will be discussing the information we have with the authority.

Would you agree that the absence of planning is an urgent matter? I want to be careful in how I say that because I know you can never plan for what exactly happens but every organisation plans, including An Garda Síochána, for things like major events. Would you agree that the serious deficiency in terms of management, co-ordination of events and deployment on the day must be dealt with urgently in the interests of public safety and the safety of rank and file gardaí?

Mr. Hugh Hume

After any major public event it is always important to quickly learn the lessons and adopt them.

Will GSOC be following up on this with the Policing Authority?

Mr. Hugh Hume

The Policing Authority has already spoken to us. It asked to speak to me and Commissioner Logan to discuss what we know and how we can help it with its review.

There are three individual complaints from members of the public outstanding. There were five in total but two were withdrawn. Is that correct?

Mr. Peter Whelan

Yes.

That is okay. In relation to complaints overall, in 2020 there were 1,955 which was an 11% increase on 2019. In 2021, there were 2,189 complaints, which was a 12% increase on the previous year. The curve has been going steadily upwards. GSOC has helpfully set out the nature of those complaints in pie charts. Of the admissible complaints, 20% related to abuse of authority, 33% to neglect of duty, and 11% to discourtesy. Those three types of complaints wrapped up amount to 64%, which seems very high. What kinds of discussions have there been with senior management regarding those three particular issues? I understand that a lot of those complaints will not be upheld but it is clear that a lot of the admissible complaints coming in are related to an abuse of authority, neglect of duty or discourtesy. Has there been interaction with senior management in An Garda Síochána regarding those types of issues and the large number of complaints in those categories?

Mr. Hugh Hume

Every complaint we receive we notify to Garda management. They have all of that information as soon as it happens. As soon as we get the complaint, we notify them through internal affairs of the nature of the complaint. They have all of that information and are made aware of it. We are required to provide that information under the Act.

Do you check back after a period of time to see what has happened?

Mr. Hugh Hume

No. To be fair, there is no structured process for that. We do have meetings occasionally with them but it would be wrong to suggest there is a structure.

Would that be with the Garda Commissioner? Would the Commissioner or the assistant commissioner be present at those meetings?

Mr. Hugh Hume

It would be assistant commissioner and deputy commissioner level.

In terms of the timeline for closing complaints, most people will accept that some complaints will take a lot of time to conclude, for various reasons. However, 7% have been going on for three years and nine cases have been ongoing for four to five years. That seems like an awfully long time. Are there cases that have been going on for more than five years?

Mr. Peter Whelan

Yes, there are.

Mr. Peter Whelan

In the five to six year category, we are talking about 0.6% of the total or four cases.

There are four cases in that category. Are they serious in nature?

Mr. Peter Whelan

I would not know off the top of my head but they would certainly have gone through a process and there would be reasons for them lying in that category.

What are the main reasons?

Mr. Peter Whelan

Again, it is down to legislation. The legislation is quite difficult. If we have a long and difficult criminal investigation and we find at the end of it that there is a dismissal in court or an acquittal, we may go into a disciplinary procedure then. Depending on the length of the first step, cases can take an increasing number of years. Sometimes it can be because we are waiting on court cases or coroner's inquests, which can take a considerable amount of time.

Of those four cases, would the main reason for the delay be that they are pending the outcome of court cases?

Mr. Peter Whelan

I am not sure. I would have to look at those four specific cases but I can do that.

Does that tend to be the biggest issue generally?

Mr. Peter Whelan

The way the Act is structured tends to be the biggest issue. It is the fact that we have to do two separate lines of investigation. When we transfer from criminal to disciplinary, we cannot use the evidence that we gathered in the criminal investigation because the disciplinary charge will be different.

The new Bill changes that.

Mr. Peter Whelan

Yes, it does.

That should deal with those real issues.

Mr. Peter Whelan

It will certainly help.

That concludes the questioning by the committee and the evidence of the witnesses. I thank the staff of GSOC and Ms Kennelly from the Department of Justice for the work they did in preparing for today's meeting and for the information they supplied to the committee. I also thank the staff of the Comptroller and Auditor General's office and the Comptroller and Auditor General himself for attending today and assisting the committee. I will take it as agreed that the clerk to the committee will seek follow-up information and carry out any actions agreed arising from today's meeting. I will also take it as agreed that we will note and publish the opening statements and briefing documents provided for today's meeting. The meeting is suspended until 1.30 p.m., when we will resume in public session to address correspondence and any other business of the committee.

The witnesses withdrew.
Sitting suspended at 12.18 p.m. and resumed at 1.34 p.m.
Barr
Roinn