asked the Minister for Justice if he is aware that it emerged in the recent criminal prosecution before the Special Criminal Court that a statement purportedly made by an arrested person (details supplied) had been invented by a member of the Garda Síochána (details supplied) and that the statement purported to be a confession to an involvement in a robbery, when the person charged with the offence had at all times denied such involvement; whether an inquiry is being conducted into this matter; and if he will conduct an inquiry into her allegations of mistreatment.
Written Answers. - Special Criminal Court Case.
63.
Limerick East): I am aware that the DPP found it necessary to withdraw a charge in this case.
Subsequently an article appeared in a Sunday newspaper and the phraseology of the Deputy's question appears to be taken from that article. There have also been other references to it in the media. I think it right to make it clear that, since the document in question did not include the standard reference to the giving of a caution, it was not in a form suitable for handing to the suspect for her signature as a statement of admission. This, however, does not mean that there was no cause for concern about what occurred. A concern remains despite the fact that a partial investigation has been carried out. A fuller investigation will take place if the woman concerned or her solicitor is willing to assist.
The Garda authorities appointed a chief superintendent to investigate the allegations. He contacted the solicitor acting for the woman concerned and arranged an appointment with her and her client. The solicitor subsequently cancelled the appointment saying that she was seeking an assurance from the DPP that her client would not be further charged arising out of the crime which was the subject of the original charge. She did not subsequently contact the chief superintendent. On 2 November he again contacted her. I am informed that she confirmed that she had received the assurance she had been seeking from the DPP and that she said she had not been in touch with her client, that she would be getting in touch with her, that she was particularly busy but that when she was ready to see him she would contact him. She has not since contacted him. May I add for the record that I understand that, in giving the assurance referred to, the DPP indicated that his decision was not linked to the investigation that was being carried out.