asked the Minister for Justice if he will consider holding an inquiry into the circumstances of the death of Mr. Patrick Nugent at Bunratty Folk Park, on 11 February 1984; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
146.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Bunratty (Clare) Death.
2.
asked the Minister for Justice if he is aware that the inquest jury in the case of a person (details supplied) in County Clare requested that he should have the matter further investigated, in view of the fact that it is now two years since his death in strange circumstances; the reason no decision has been taken to date; if he will now undertake an investigation; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
I propose, subject to no further interruptions from a former Minister for Finance who knows what contract procedures are about, to take Questions Nos. 2 and 146 together.
This case has already been the subject of a Garda investigation, a criminal trial and a coroner's inquest, which is, in effect, a sworn public inquiry. It is clear that the jury at the inquest were not satisfied that all of the relevant facts of the case had emerged and, on this basis, they added a rider to the verdict that a further investigation should be carried out by me. I assume that this was done in the belief that I have investigative machinery within my Department to pursue the matter further. In fact no such machinery is available to me, nor have I, as Minister for Justice, any legal powers to conduct such an investigation.
The Garda authorities have informed me that they have already done everything they can to get to the bottom of the matter. It is noteworthy that the jury expressed their appreciation of the fullness of the inquiries the Garda had made in the case.
If the suggestion is that a tribunal of inquiry be set up to look at the matter, I believe that such a tribunal would be justifiable only if it appeared reasonable to expect that it would produce new evidence and not just a repetition of the evidence given at the inquest and at the trial. In the absence of any such expectation, it is difficult to see how the setting up of such a tribunal would be justified.
Garda disciplinary proceedings are at present in progress, at the direction of the Garda authorities. I have no function in such proceedings. They are not an investigation into the death itself and will be primarily directed towards the question of whether there were breaches of regulations by individual gardaí. Should any new relevant material emerge during the course of the disciplinary proceedings, I will be prepared to look at the matter again.
I am sure the Minister is aware that in the jury verdict before the rider was added the last lines were "The jury add the attached rider to their findings because of suppression of evidence by witnesses to the event". Is the Minister aware that this is clear evidence that at the inquest there was suppression of evidence, therefore the inquest could not be regarded as in any way an inquiry to arrive at the cause of death and the reasons for it, because of this suppression of evidence? As a result of that I am sure the Minister is aware that the jury added this rider in which they said, "However the jury are far from satisfied as to the circumstances under which Patrick Nugent sustained the injuries which caused his death", and for that reason asked the Minister for Justice to have the matter investigated further. The jury, laymen, would not know what machinery is available to the Minister but being the Minister in charge they assumed he would have the appropriate procedures, a public inquiry, a formal inquiry or whatever. Does the Minister now think——
I cannot allow such a long speech or any speech on it.
With those facts at his disposal what further investigation does the Minister intend to carry out? Will he have a formal public inquiry, not necessarily a tribunal of inquiry, to arrive at the evidence which was suppressed?
The facts to which Deputy Mac Giolla refers are, of course, at my disposal. They consist of his rehearsal of the fact, first of all, that the jury at the inquest added a rider to their decision, and then the rider itself, I am aware that the jury expressed their belief that evidence was suppressed and then asked the Minister for Justice to have the matter investigated further. As I have pointed out, the case has already been the subject of a Garda investigation, a criminal trial and a coroner's inquest. As I have said, the coroner's inquest is in the nature of a sworn public inquiry. If I believed or if there were any reason for believing that a further investigation would bring new evidence or new facts to light, then it would be worth considering. Since, following those three investigations, of different kinds, it now appears we have got all the information that is likely to be got about the case, I cannot see now any reason for taking any further steps. As I have said, no investigative machinery is available to me as Minister for Justice to do the kind of thing which the jury appeared to have in mind.
The Minister will be aware that the jury also expressed the hope that expenses and compensation would be paid to the Nugent family as a result of this tragic case. Has the Minister taken that into account, and what does he propose to do about that?
That clearly is a separate question.
Perhaps then, the Minister can tell me what the present situation is regarding the internal Garda investigation, the disciplinary proceedings etc? What stage have they reached? When are they likely to be completed? Have charges been brought against some people involved in this incident? Could he expedite the matter in order to be fair to everybody involved in this tragedy?
The first part of the Deputy's question, as the Chair has indicated is a separate matter.
Separate for whom?
It is a separate matter. It does not arise on the question before the House at the moment.
Does it not refer to the Minister?
It does not arise on the matter before the House.
It arises, in any case, on the whole subject.
It is part of the jury verdict.
I am sorry. The matter does not arise in the context of the question that I am answering.
I have ruled already.
If a Deputy wants to ask about that, by all means let us have a separate question on the matter. As far as the Garda inquiry——
A Cheann Comhairle, on a point of order——
I think I should answer one question before the Deputy asks another.
——the question refers to the holding of an inquiry into this matter and asks if the Minister would make a statement on the matter.
That does not cover everything.
There are only two items in it.
If the making of a statement on the matter is thrown in for good measure and in the hope that it will open up anything and everything, it does not.
The Minister has available the jury verdict.
The Minister to reply, please.
With regard to the second part of Deputy Daly's question referring to the Garda investigation, as I pointed out in my original answer, disciplinary proceedings are under way at the moment. I have no function in those proceedings; they are a matter for the Garda authorities. I would think it absolutely improper for me to intervene in any way in what is an internal Garda inquiry.
But the Minister must——
Order, please, I appeal to Deputies to make their questions short——
If the Government had turned up in time we would have had more time.
——and not be making long statements. I call on Deputy Mac Giolla.
Does the Minister accept that evidence was suppressed at the coroner's inquest?
I cannot give an opinion on that. The jury at the coroner's inquest, having considered all that was put before them, expressed the view——
I cannot allow the Minister to make a speech.
If the Deputy will not wait for me to answer his question, there is not much point in this.
Is he in favour of the findings at the coroner's inquest?
The jury expressed the view that there was supression of evidence. I have given it as my view that as we have had a Garda investigation, a criminal trial and an inquest, I do not think any further investigation would be likely to bring forward new material which could be the basis of further steps. I have also said that if from the Garda disciplinary proceedings currently going on, any new or relevant material emerges, I shall look again at the matter.
Could the Minister give us any indication——
If evidence was suppressed at the coroner's inquest it should be disclosed. What steps does the Minister propose to take to see that the evidence which possibly was suppressed is publicised, in the interests of the family, since the jury also said in their rider: "It is the duty of the State to vindicate his life and good name in accordance with the provisions of Article 40 of the Constitution." How does the Minister propose to have this evidence publicly disclosed in the interests of young Patrick Nugent?
If any evidence was suppressed — and I cannot give a view on that — it has been so suppressed through, as I have said several times, a Garda investigation, a criminal trial and an inquest. Those are the instruments and the procedures available to us for bringing out the evidence in cases like this.
I am calling on Deputy O'Dea.
Are the disciplinary proceedings taking place at the moment against certain members of the Garda arising out of the facts which emerged from the criminal trial or out of an internal Garda inquiry?
As I said in my original answer, the disciplinary proceedings will be primarily directed towards the question of whether or not there were breaches of regulations by individual gardaí. They are not concerned with the death of Mr. Nugent.
Does that include the jury's verdict?
The Minister has not answered my question. Can he tell me whether there was an internal Garda inquiry into this matter?
I should hope there was.
I have already said in the original answer, on the first line: "This case has already been the subject of a Garda investigation, a criminal trial and a coroner's inquest."
An investigation?
I think that answers the question.
I think it does not.