Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Thursday, 13 Dec 1984

Vol. 354 No. 12

Written Answers. - Dismissal of Former Superintendent.

432.

asked the Minister for Justice if he will examine the case of a person (details supplied) a former superintendent of the Garda Síochána who contends that: (a) he was dismissed from the force without an opportunity to clear his name; (b) that the grounds on which he was dismissed are without foundation; (c) that all the indications available suggest that he was the victim of a frame-up or a terrible mistake; (d) that there is no real evidence against him and as such, his dismissal is an apparent violation of equity and natural justice; (e) that he has sought without success for nearly 60 years to clear his name; (f) that a person (details supplied) who is a former chief superintendent, stated prior to his death that he was convinced of his innocence and if he will, for all the above reasons, make a statement on the matter.

Limerick East): The dismissal of the former superintendent concerned, which took place in 1928, was very fully considered some years ago — in 1977-1978 to be precise — as a result of representations made to the then Minister for Justice by the man concerned. The outcome, however, was that no evidence could be found that would enable the Minister to be of any assistance in the matter.

What has been said in the course of the latest representations does not include anything of a substantial nature that is new. The reference in the text of the question to a favourable statement by a former chief superintendent is, I am afraid, incomplete. Whatever was said by the former chief superintendent in a favourable sense was subsequently withdrawn by him on the stated basis that the earlier comment was made only because he had been pestered, and the effect of his statements, taken together, was hardly supportive.

The only official record about the dismissal is the record of the decision to dismiss — there is no official documentation available as to the background. Whether the background information was ever recorded is not clear. Relevant papers, if they existed, would have been liable to have long since been pulped. Every effort was made to get information about the circumstances of the dismissal and all the material that was available, including press-cutting etc., was considered by the then Attorney General as well as by the Minister for Justice. The result of all the inquiries was that there was no adequate basis for rescinding the dismissal.

The then Minister wrote to the man concerned on 31 May 1978, to give the result of his inquiries and to explain, in detail, why no action was possible. He explained that it was not open to him to decide that a dismissal of some 50 years earlier was unjustified or even open to doubt because the information on which the authorities of that time acted was not still available to be evaluated — that, otherwise, numerous past decisions no matter how well justified would have to be rescinded because the evidence on which they were based had, in the normal process, been lost through the periodic pulping of old papers. The Minister mentioned the steps he had taken to get information and gave the results of those inquiries. The clear intention was that the recipient was to feel free to publish the Minister's letter if he thought it helpful to himself to do so.

In the absence of evidence that would substantiate the former superintendent's contentions I regret that I am not in a position to advance the matter further. As was said by my predecessor, it is a situation where those who know the man concerned or have read the evidence will make up their own minds.

Barr
Roinn