Vol. 196 No. 14
asked the Minister for Justice if, having regard to widespread public uneasiness concerning the reported resignation of Garda James Travers under threat of dismissal, he will have steps taken to suspend any further action in the matter pending a full independent investigation of the circumstances of the case.
51.
asked the Minister for Justice whether his attention has been drawn to a report appearing in the press with regard to the events leading up to the impending resignation of Garda James Travers from the police force; and whether, in view of public disquiet about the matter, he will make a statement regarding the events leading to Garda Travers' resignation.
With your permission, a Cheann Comhairle, I propose to answer Nos. 50 and 51 together.
As the Minister for Justice has no function in a case of this sort, I have not entered into the matter in any way nor do I propose to do so.
The general direction and control of the Garda Síochána is, in accordance with section 8 (1) of the Police Forces Amalgamation Act, 1925, vested in the Commissioner. He has informed me that the position in the case is as follows:
On Saturday, 26th May, the Garda in question paraded for duty at Store Street Station with sixteen other members. He was detailed by his Sergeant for traffic control duty at Nelson Pillar (West Side), and replied "I refuse to do it". The Inspector, who was present at the time, advised the Garda to take up the duty allocated to him, and that if he had any complaint to put it in writing and the matter would be enquired into. To this, the Garda replied "I refuse to do it".
The matter was reported in writing to the District Superintendent on 27th May, and on his direction it was brought to the notice of the Garda on 28th May that he was at liberty to furnish an explanation in writing at that stage if he so desired. The Garda declined to make any written statement.
A report in the matter was made to the Assistant Commissioner in charge of the Metropolitan Division, and he directed on 5th June that disciplinary charges be preferred.
Five disciplinary charges were preferred in writing against the Garda on 8th June, in accordance with the Garda Síochána (Discipline) Regulations, 1926. He admitted in writing, on 14th June, two charges of disobedience to orders, that is, that on 26th May he disobeyed the lawful orders of two superiors, a sergeant and an inspector. The Garda did not offer any explanation of his conduct.
By written direction of the Commissioner, dated 2nd July, the Garda was informed that the Commissioner considered that the disciplinary offences which the Garda had admitted warranted his dismissal. The Garda was also informed that, before ordering his dismissal, the Commissioner was prepared to afford him an opportunity of tendering his resignation, and that if the Garda wished to avoid dismissal he should submit his resignation within three days. On 5th July the Garda applied for permission to resign. His application was accepted, and his last day of service was 11th July.
Was there any previous charge against this particular Guard before the 26th May?
Unfortunately, I have to say "Yes, there was", but I want to make it clear that the action of the Commissioner with regard to this member in giving him a chance to resign was taken on compassionate and humanitarian grounds. I am afraid the effect of that leniency by the Commissioner is being largely negatived by these questions.
Is it not a fact that the alleged offence charged against Garda Travers is one which frequently occurs in the Force, particularly when a vexatious order is given or when any member is required to do something beyond the normal turn of duties, that never before in the history of the Force has such an allegation of insubordination been punished by dismissal and that prior to this punishment meted out was that of a fine or a transfer to a less attractive station?
That is a complete misinterpretation of the situation. The offence in this case—I have indicated it was not the first offence—was one of open defiance of an ordinary order. The punishment decided upon by the Commissioner, after full investigation by all intermediate officers and after an opportunity had been given to the Garda to give an explanation, was the normal, usual punishment for a flagrant refusal to carry out an order. There was nothing vexatious about the order. It was a perfectly normal duty for which this Garda was detailed. The punishment, was, as I say, decided on by the Commissioner in order to be humanitarian about the matter and to give this young member of the Force a chance of starting a new career elsewhere by giving him the option to resign.
Is that not invariably done? There is a threat of punishment and an invitation to resign at the same time. That is why I have asked these questions that the disciplinary code be modified.
I should at this stage point out that in the term of the last Coalition Government the Garda Representative Body approached the Minister for Justice at that time with a request that the regulations governing these matters be revised and amended. That request was on two occasions refused. The official responsible for conveying that decision, and probably, I suspect, having a large part in the formulation of it, was the person now known as Deputy Richie Ryan.
With the greatest respect to the Minister, if the Minister wishes to use his powers for the purpose of propagating falsehoods, the sooner he resigns from this office the better. When will there be an end to the reign of terror in the Department of Justice, in the Guards and in the office of the Attorney General? Do we have to have another Cabinet reshuffle in this country as well?
Will the Minister not agree that, if the facts are as detailed by him in relation to this Guard, it is perhaps one of the most amazing coincidences in point of time that has ever occurred?
Would the Minister agree that this man was driven to resign?
Question No. 52.
This is not a matter to be passed over in this way. The plain truth is that there is a great deal of public malaise in regard to this matter. The plain truth is there is an outstanding coincidence in the fact that this member of the Garda Síochána was, in the course of his duty, associated with the prosecution of a member of the Government. Immediately after this he is involved in this extraordinary disciplinary story——
That is a scandalous statement to make. The Deputy should be ashamed of it.
I want to get this matter clarified. Everybody in Ireland knows the facts and now is the time to clear this matter up. I had hoped the Minister would do so.
Are we to have a debate on it?
This is a most proper attempt to clarify the matter.
It is irresponsible and scandalous.
All I want to ask is this. Does the Minister not feel he has a public duty to clarify this situation and make it manifest to the country that there is no relationship between the action of the Guard in the course of his duty and the consequent disciplinary crisis resulting in his dismissal or involuntary resignation? May I ask the Minister is he not aware that this question is being asked all through the country and that the clarification of it is vitally necessary if serious public damage is not to be done?
The Deputy should leave that work to his hatchet men.
I have cleared up this situation as precisely as I can. I have given Deputies full clarification of exactly what is involved. I am reluctant to do so, but now I am forced to say that this was not the first occasion this member of the Force was involved in a disciplinary charge. Secondly, the charge of which he was convicted on the second occasion was nothing more or less than a complete refusal to obey a lawful order by his sergeant. Having refused to obey that order when requested to do so by his inspector, an opportunity was given to him to explain his conduct in writing by his superintendent, and that was still met by a refusal. It was only in the very last resort, when the matter had been considered by every responsible officer up to the Commissioner, that the punishment was decided upon. To infer or to suggest that the Garda authorities at all levels would be party to the sort of thing suggested by Deputy Dillon and Deputy Ryan is a travesty.
Was the Minister aware of what was happening?
I was not aware. I have nothing whatever to do with disciplinary matters.
There is not as much green in the eyes as the Minister thinks.
Would the Minister say whether or not, in respect of the order the Garda was alleged to have disobeyed, he was being asked to do an unusual period of traffic duty?
It was a perfectly normal detail which the Garda was asked to perform. There was nothing out of the ordinary about it or nothing vexatious, as I have indicated. It was a detail to go on traffic duty at Nelson Pillar, west side.
What was the date of the other charge?
December, 1961.
52.
asked the Minister for Justice if he will state with reference to Garda James Travers (a) the date upon which he first joined the Garda Síochána, (b) the date he left the Force, (c) whether he is entitled to a pension or gratuity and, if so, the amount thereof, and (d) whether he would have received a pension or gratuity if he had failed to resign and had been dismissed instead.
Ex-Garda Travers joined the Garda Síochána on 25th February, 1958, and left the Force on the 11th July, 1962. By reason of his short service he does not qualify for pension or gratuity but is entitled to a refund of his pension contributions, which amount to £50 14s. 1d. Had he been dismissed, he would not have been entitled to a refund of the contributions.
