In respect to this matter, if at all possible persons outside this House should not be referred to by name or in any way that would make them identifiable.
Adjournment Debate. - Statement by Garda in Drink Driving Case.
Although these allegations were made on 20 May last, I decided not to raise this matter in the House because the case was adjourned until last Monday. As the case has now been disposed of I availed of the opportunity to raise this matter on the Adjournment this evening. Because the Adjournment Debates commenced at midnight for the last two nights, this has been my first opportunity to raise this matter following the disposal of the case in the Dublin District Court.
When this drink driving case came before the Dublin District Court for the second occasion it had to be adjourned because the investigating garda, who was the prosecuting garda, from Donnybrook Garda station, said: "Summonses keep disappearing in connection with these charges. Somebody has been interfering with this case internally." I regard that as a very serious matter. It is important in the enforcement of our laws, particularly in regard to the enforcement of our criminal law, that we have a fair and equitable system. The establishment of the office of the Director of Public Prosecutions under the 1974 Act was done not just to streamline the way we deal with prosecution but in order to have an independent office holder. Under section 6 of the Act, it is an offence for any person to communicate in any way or to seek to influence the Director in the taking of a prosecution or in the proceeding with or dropping of charges. That office has worked extremely well.
However, I was very disturbed to read the comments of the investigating garda. It is interesting that counsel for the defence in this case sought to have the case dismissed last Monday on the basis that there was a long delay between the initial complaint and the hearing of the case. Obviously, there was a long delay because on two occasions the case had to be adjourned due to the fact that the summonses, although they had been served, were not available to be proceeded with. It is important not just in terms of this case but of the legislation that is going through the House this week that no citizen, regardless of how influential he or she might be, should escape the full rigours of the law.
The person involved in this case suffered a dreadful ordeal and I do not wish to make it more difficult, but the gardaí involved were extremely upset at what they perceived to be happening. If there is a simple explanation I would like to hear it from the Minister. I would also like an answer to a number of questions. Did the Garda Commissioner carry out an inquiry as to the truth or otherwise of the allegations made by the garda involved and, if so, what was the result? Was there interference on the part of the gardaí or at district court level? I accept that names cannot be mentioned in this case and I do not wish to do so, but would the Minister accept that had Judge Thelma King not re-entered the summonses the case could not have proceeded last Monday? I compliment the judge, but this case should not have involved the judge having to re-enter the summonses.
Interference with prosecution has serious implications for the enforcement of law and order. There is a view that we are not fair and impartial in enforcing the law in that there is one law for one section of the community and that others in a different strata of society escape the law. That should not be the case and the Minister should be clear on this matter. If the garda's allegations were not correct, the Minister should say so. The Garda Commissioner has used no opportunity since 20 May to deny the allegations made by the prosecuting garda in this case.
The best way to respond is to set out clearly and comprehensively what happened in this case stage by stage. The person in question was arrested under the Road Traffic Acts on 20 May 1992 and the prosecuting garda subsequently completed a summons application in the usual manner. However, the application was not processed and the prosecuting garda reapplied for a summons in the first week of August 1992. This application was processed and the case was listed for hearing on 25 February 1993. However, the gardaí were unable to serve the summons. On 3 March the Director of Public Prosecutions directed that the summons be reissued. This was done and the case was listed for hearing in court on 26 March. Over the course of several weeks gardaí made a number of further attempts to serve the summons but were unsuccessful as the person in question was apparently away from home. As a result it was necessary to again reissue the summons and the case was listed for hearing in court on 20 May. This summons was successfully served by the gardaí and the case accordingly came to court on 20 May 1993.
At the hearing, the judge asked the prosecuting garda about the late entry of the summons. In response the garda expressed concern about the manner in which the case had been processed. On hearing the garda's submission the judge decided to adjourn the case to 28 June, and it was subsequently heard on that date. The court imposed a fine of £100, the person's driving licence was endorsed and she was disqualified from driving for 12 months.
An investigation ordered by the Garda Commissioner following the reports of the prosecuting garda's comments at the court hearing on 20 May found no evidence to show there was a deliberate attempt to frustrate prosecution in this case. In regard to the original summons application, no explanation can be established for its disappearance. In this regard it is important to note that the removal of such a form would be in no way a bar to prosecution, as is illustrated by subsequent developments in the case.
I agree with Deputy Harney that regardless of who someone is or who they happen to know in any walk of life, if they are involved in crime, are arrested by a garda or are summonsed to appear in court they must face the full rigours of the law.