I wish to make a statement concerning the incidents surrounding extradition proceedings involving Miss Evelyn Glenholmes on Saturday, 22 March 1986.
An investigation has been carried out by the Garda authorities into the incidents in question. Statements have been taken from those members of the force who were in any way involved. In addition, a number of people, mainly journalists, who appeared to be likely to be in a position to provide useful information have been interviewed. The Garda have not sought to interview persons known to have been involved as associates or supporters of Miss Glenholmes.
A particular word of thanks is due to a number of journalists who had witnessed some of the events and who helped in the Garda investigation. They provided very useful information — without pointing a finger of blame at any identifiable person inside or outside the Garda Síochána. Some journalists, however, indicated that they were unable to agree to assist and among them were some who had, in the news media, made assertions which are denied by the Garda. I mention them because, although they were of course entirely within their legal rights in refusing to co-operate, an inescapable consequence is that the investigating gardaí were not in a position to seek clarification of various points arising from their media reports. They could not, for example, establish how far those journalists were referring to matters observed by themselves and from what distance, or to what extent they were relying on material supplied by others.
In the normal course of events, if a question is to be raised as to whether the Garda have improperly interfered with the liberty of a member of the public, it is for the person directly concerned to raise it and to make himself or herself available for interview. Alternatively, the complainant has the right to challenge the action of the Garda Síochána by taking legal proceedings. In this instance, however, some of the allegations made raise issues of public importance in a way that calls for a public response. Most of those allegations may be taken under two headings, viz. (1) allegations that the courtroom door was locked, closed or deliberately "blocked" by gardaí so as to prevent Miss Glenholmes leaving and (2) allegations that a member of the Garda Síochána fired shots indiscriminately or recklessly on the public street. Some account of events preceding the court decision to release Miss Glenholmes is necessary for an understanding of the role of the Garda Síochána in subsequent events.
On Friday, 21 March in the course of the relevant extradition proceedings, it became apparent to those concerned with representing the interests of the State on the legal side that there was a distinct possibility that, because of certain circumstances relating to the way in which the warrants of arrest had been issued in England, the District Court might decide that the warrants were insufficient.
In view of the apparent weakness in relation to the warrant which emerged in the course of the cross-examination of a member of the London Metropolitan Police Force on 21 March, the State sought and secured an adjournment and arrangements were made for the attendance in Dublin early the following morning of an official from the office of the Director of Public Prosecutions in London for the purpose of clarifying the precise circumstances in which the warrants had been issued. In particular, it was hoped that the precise circumstances in which information had been laid before the London magistrate would be clarified by this official. As it turned out, the information that he gave on Saturday morning was not such as to assist in progressing the matter before the court.
It is important to note that the crimes of which the prisoner was being accused included several murders and other serious crimes. Contrary to what has been alleged or implied in certain quarters, the provision for the execution here of English warrants — the arrangement is of course reciprocal — is not something that follows from the Anglo-Irish Agreement or from some recent developments in Government policy. It is an arrangement for which legal provision exists under an Act of 1965. Subject always to scrupulous adherence to the provisions of the Act — which provides safeguards for the accused person, including a 15-day waiting period during which an accused person may go to the High Court — it is the duty both of the Garda Síochána and of the legal services of the State to take such steps as are open to them to ensure that persons are brought before the court to answer charges in every case where such a course is legally justified. This, apart from being a matter of duty in the general interests of the administration of justice, is also a duty arising from the international obligations of the State. And it is a duty which, in the implementation of the arrangements for extradition, requires that both the legal services and the police in the two jurisdictions concerned should provide such mutual assistance as is practicable and as is reasonably required to make the arrangements effective.
Against that background there were consultations between the services concerned in both jurisdictions. It was agreed that a new warrant would be sought as a matter of urgency in England, but only if and after the District Court had found against the existing ones and that, as soon as it was obtained, an inspector of the Garda Síochána would be informed by telephone and he would then apply to a district justice here for a provisional warrant for the re-arrest of Miss Glenholmes for the purpose of bringing her before the District Court. Contrary to certain suggestions that have been made, there is no question of a person being extradited on the basis of material supplied by telephone. Information supplied by telephone in that way has to be confirmed formally by legal documentation and the person arrested on a provisional warrant has available the full range of legal safeguards, including a court hearing. The issue of provisional warrants is in accordance with standard international practice and is specifically provided for by the Extradition Act, 1965.
Certain comments reported in the news media would suggest that there was something furtive about the making of those arrangements. There is no basis for that. Naturally, the fact that such arrangements were made was not going to be disclosed to the person concerned or to her legal representatives before effect had been given to them. But, beyond that point, there was no question of those responsible for the arrangements having any interest in concealing the fact that they had been made. It should be noted that effect would be given to the arrangements only in the event that the District Court might discharge Miss Glenholmes, as it subsequently did.
Because special arrangements were made to have telephone lines available, it was thought — erroneously in the event — that it would be possible to obtain the new, provisional, warrant within a very short time of any decision that the existing one was inadequate. On that basis a number of members of the Garda Síochána were informed by their superior officers of the proposed arrangements and they were instructed, in the event of Miss Glenholmes being released by the court, to keep her movements under close observation so that the expected new warrant could be executed when it became available. In the event, it took longer to obtain the new warrant than had been expected.
I turn now to the events in the courtroom, and will deal first with the principle. All members of the Garda Síochána, and especially members with any role in relation to courts or courtrooms, are well aware that the independent status of the courts must be respected in all circumstances and that no considerations of expediency could justify arrest or deliberate obstruction of movement within the courtroom, or indeed in the court precincts, of a person whose release has been ordered by the court.
I now deal with the facts. Despite some allegations about locked doors or closed doors, it is clear that at the relevant time the courtroom door in question was not and could not have been locked and, moreover, the evidence of those at the scene is such that it seems quite clear that suggestions that the door was closed are also unfounded. The only allegation in this respect that calls for any more detailed response is that the door was deliberately blocked by gardaí, with the result that Miss Glenholmes and her legal advisers had to leave by the district justice's room.
As has been reported in the news media, the courtroom in question is a small one, 20 feet by 18 feet. Apart from the district justice's desk, it has a number of benches so that, even in uncrowded conditions, free movement is effectively limited to the aisles surrounding the seated area. Moreover, the relevant door opens inwards into the room, in such a way that it substantially reduces speed of exit if any significant number of people are trying to get out quickly.
On the occasion in question the courtroom was full to the point where some people seeking admission could not be admitted and a number of those people remained outside the room, but in the vicinity. Among those in court were legal representatives, a fair number of journalists, members of the public, including associates of Miss Glenholmes, and gardaí. As it was necessary to provide for the discharge of various specific duties of a security nature, the number of gardaí had to be significantly higher than is usual at court hearings.
Amongst those waiting just outside the courtroom door were associates of Miss Glenholmes. There is ample evidence that, when the court's decision was announced and communicated to those outside, they or some of them sought to get in while various people inside, including journalists seeking interviews or wishing to file reports, were trying to get out. The result was that there was confusion for a short time, with a great deal of pushing and shoving.
I had occasion a few days ago to observe that a particular person was not there. I do not want to have to make that observation again. The Garda Síochána have stated that there was certainly no Garda plan to obstruct Miss Glenholmes in leaving the courtroom and that, as far as can be established by them, no member of the force sought to do so. There is, however, some conflict of evidence as to whether a small number of gardaí who at that stage were in the vicinity of the door were themselves caught up in the situation or were deliberately adding to the obstruction. What seems to be clear in any event is that those conditions lasted only a very short time — apparently, a matter of a minute or so — when Miss Glenholmes was taken by her legal advisers through the district justice's room from which she emerged into the same corridor as she would have reached had she come through the public door. There appears to be no dispute about the fact that, when moving along this corridor, she had full freedom of movement even though, obviously, the gardaí would have been physically in a position to block her movements either there or at some stage before she had passed through the gates of the court complex if that had been part of their plan.
I now turn to the firing of shots in Prince's Street, Dublin. The circumstances in which the shots were fired are stated in the Garda reports to be as follows.
By the time Miss Glenholmes reached the vicinity of Prince's Street, the fact that a provisional warrant for her arrest had been issued was known generally to members of the Garda Síochána on duty in the vicinity. Very shortly after that, a member of the detective branch saw a uniformed colleague on the ground and being beset by some members of the crowd and he went to his assistance. He in turn was manhandled by members of the crowd. At that point, the member, although armed, had not drawn his gun which was being carried out of sight but, despite that, he and a number of other members of the force heard a call from the crowd to have his gun taken from him. The language used was hostile.
As he was a person who had on a number of occasions given evidence against persons involved in crimes associated with paramilitary organisations and as some of those in the vicinity were persons well known to the gardaí to be involved in paramilitary activity, he believed that there was a strong likelihood that he was personally recognised — and not just recognised as being a member of the Garda Síochána — and that he was in imminent and serious danger of being disarmed. He therefore fired two warning shots in the air. While most of those concerned stood back at that stage, a small number did not, so he fired a third warning shot.
While references have been made to shooting over the heads of the crowd, there appears to be no serious suggestion that any of the three shots was fired otherwise than vertically.
I have already publicly stated that it is always a matter of very great concern if shots are fired in a public place with large numbers of people about. I reiterate that now. The Garda authorities have assured me that they fully share my concern and that they will vigorously maintain a policy of strict control as far as the use of firearms by members are concerned. What occurred on this occasion occurred in quite exceptional circumstances and does not in any way imply that there has been or will be any weakening of resolve in this respect. I must, however, also say that any attempt to disarm a member of the Garda Síochána whose duty it is to carry a firearm, or any incitement to others to engage in such an attempt, must be characterised as reckless and irresponsible and, despite the restraint which the gardaí are rightly called on to exercise in the general interests of the public, anybody who is involved in any such action cannot evade the primary responsibility for any untoward consequences.
As I indicated earlier, I believe that the matters in respect of which questions affecting the public interest have mainly arisen are: first, the allegation that the gardaí, by conduct in the courtroom, disregarded the special status of the courts, and, second, the firing of shots in a crowded central city area. I have dealt with those two matters in some detail. There were, of course, other incidents in between. They, however, concern primarily the person directly involved in the legal proceedings and those who were associated with her on that occasion. There are, nevertheless, some points even in relation to those matters on which I think it is appropriate to comment, on the basis that they are points in respect of which the element of public interest as distinct from private interest may reasonably be said to predominate.
Specifically, there were suggestions that the Garda Síochána acted in a highhanded and intimidatory fashion in relation to some members of the general public who were going about their business and who were not of their own volition involved in the various incidents. In particular, it was suggested that the gardaí commandeered a truck and used it to block a roadway and that, at other points, they blocked bridges or streets.
I am informed that the gardaí blocked no bridge or street and that there was no commandeering of a truck. In fact, I understand that the initial reports that such things had happened were contradicted in later reports. On a more general level, I have already mentioned that the arrangements that had been made between the agencies concerned in both jurisdictions were expected to result in a provisional warrant being obtained more quickly that it was in the event. This in turn contributed largely to the fact that the practical problems that arose for the Garda Síochána in seeking to maintain observation of Miss Glenholmes were substantially greater than had been anticipated. I can assure the House that everything that arose in the aftermath of the court decision is under review by the Garda authorities with a view to learning such lessons as may be learned from the various incidents. I would add, however, that just as the legal difficulties that arose had not arisen previously, they are likewise most unlikely to recur because, arising from the legal points that were raised on this occasion, the necessary precautions will have been taken in future cases by those concerned with the legal requirements and procedures. On that basis it seems highly unlikely that the gardaí will again have occasion to deal with a similar situation.
Finally, I would like to take this opportunity to clarify two points raised in a speech reportedly made by the Fianna Fáil spokesman on Justice, Deputy Woods, on Friday last. I confine myself to points that are relevant to the matters I have dealt with in this statement. First, contrary to what Deputy Woods reportedly said, I did not promise a report on the affair within 24 hours and then within a few days. What I said quite clearly on a number of occasions was that I would make no statement until I had received a full report of the events. Second, Deputy Woods is reported as having said that I have an obligation to explain why the authorities here did not properly scrutinise the defective warrants. I must point out that it has been explained more than once that no amount of scrutiny of the warrants could have detected the deficiencies which emerged in the court proceedings and which the court held to be such as to invalidate the warrants. The reason is that what was at issue was not something that appeared in the warrants themselves but in the procedure that led to their being issued. The British Home Secretary has very frankly and fairly accepted that responsibility for what occurred in that respect rested entirely with London.
In association with this statement I am circulating to Deputies a diagram of the courtroom and the immediately surrounding area and I propose also to make it available to the library.
