Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 24 May 1978

Vol. 306 No. 11

Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Garda Promotion.

17.

asked the Minister for Justice if he is aware of recent allegations of victimisation, particularly in relation to promotional opportunities, of Garda officers who had been responsible for exposing irregularities in the Technical Bureau; and whether he will take steps to ensure that no such victimisation is allowed to continue.

I would normally not be prepared to comment on matters of internal Garda administration but, because the allegations in question are a serious reflection on the integrity of senior Garda officers including the Commissioner, I want to say categorically that I am satisfied that they are wholly without foundation. I would furthermore point out that if individual members of the gardaí consider that they have reason to feel aggrieved about promotional opportunities or other conditions of service there are adequate and recognised procedures whereby these matters can be taken up through the Garda associations.

As this question is connected with the problems that arose about fingerprint identification, I should like to take this opportunity to add a brief clarifying note to my detailed reply of yesterday.

In that reply, when dealing with the case relating to the murder of the British Ambassador, I explained that when, in October 1976 my Department were informed by the Garda Síochána that a finger mark had been linked with a particular person, the Department were told that the identification was subject to a reservation or qualification. In that context I mentioned a note that was made at the time in my Department and that confirms what I had said. All that was correct and was the point I was making. However, when referring to the reservation or qualification that had been made, I said that it related to the need to obtain better quality prints. That was included as explanatory material for the fuller information of the House, but it was inadvertently put in a way that would suggest that the departmental note that was made at the time included that particular detail. For the sake of accuracy, and having regard to the conflicting interests involved, I would like to make it clear that that is not so and that the detail about better prints is based on other material. This does not affect the point at issue, which is that allegations were publicly made that what my Department were given was an unqualified identification on which the expert or experts concerned had expressed themselves as willing to go to court. The departmental note shows that that was not so.

Barr
Roinn