I am grateful for the opportunity to raise this matter on the Adjournment. I wish to share my time with Deputy Flood.
Adjournment Debate. - Collapse of Court Case.
I am sure that is satisfactory and agreed.
On Wednesday, 11 October, my colleague, Deputy Flood, raised on the Adjournment the collapse of a court case involving badger baiting before the Dublin District Court. During the course of her reply, the Minister gave a version of events which was flatly contradicted by the District Justice who heard the case. That contradiction appeared in The Sunday Tribune of 15 October and I will quote a passage from the relevant article:
However, The Sunday Tribune has learnt that Judge Hogan strongly disputes this version of events and has contracted the Department of Justice to deny the Minister's claims. He has also demanded that she withdraw her remarks within a week.
The newspaper further states:
The Judge has indicated that unless he obtains satisfaction from Mrs. Owen, he will make his views public in comments from the bench.
In another article in the same edition of the newspaper, a distinguished retired Circuit Court Judge, Frank Martin, described the Minister's comments as being entirely at variance with the facts.
It is now patently obvious that there is not any possibility that the two versions of events, that of the Minister and the District Justice, can be reconciled. I ask the Minister, which version is correct?
I will tell the Deputy.
Has the Minister misled this House or is it her contention that an eminent and respected District Justice has sought to mislead the country? If the Minister has misled the House, does she intend to take the only honourable course open to her and resign? That is the only effective means open to her now to demonstrate that her Government's adherence to openness, transparency and accountability is more than merely verbal. If the Minister has misled the Dáil in a matter of this magnitude, surely she does not intend to continue to cling to office hidden behind one of her officials. It would be most peculiar if she sought to do so given her attitude and the attitude of other members of her party to this sort of behaviour when they were in office. I wish to give some examples of that.
In the Official Report for 15 November 1994, Column 39, Deputy John Bruton, who was in Opposition at the time, stated:
In the Arcon case the Minister was unwilling to take responsibility for decisions of his Department for which he was legally responsible under the Ministers and Secretaries Act and produced, not to the Dáil but to journalists, an official who took the rap. This is another case of evasion of responsibility, by shoving the matter into the hands of officials who will now probably be moved and it will be implied that they are truly responsible. That is not acceptable.
As reported in the Official Report at Column 1136 of 27 October 1994, Deputy Owen, in Opposition at the time, stated: "Under the Ministers and Secretaries Act, 1924 ... a Minister is responsible for everything that happens in his or her Department". At Column 1138 of the same Official Report, the Deputy also stated: "The Minister is a coward and he is hiding behind his civil servants".
I do not wish to interrupt the Deputy but I have been listening to him carefully. I presume the Deputy is not alleging that the Minister deliberately misled the House because such charges ought not to be made.
I am asking the Minister whether she misled the House.
I would ask the Deputy to wait until he hears my reply before he goes too far into the allegations.
Again in the Official Report of 27 October 1994, at column 1138, Deputy Avril Doyle, then in Opposition, stated: "He [the Minister] is letting civil servants take the blame for something that is his responsibility. The buck stops with the Minister". At Column 1139 of the same Official Report, Deputy Gay Mitchell, also in Opposition at the time, stated: "The Minister is hiding behind civil servants, an act of political cowardice". In the same volume of the Official Report, Deputy Mitchell called for a contempt of parliament Act under which those who mislead this House, particularly office-holders, should be severely dealt with.
If the Minister's version of events last week was incorrect, any attempt by her to hide behind her officials in this matter will be "government by scapegoat" and will be utterly unacceptable in the light of her remarks and those of her colleagues — and there are many more where they came from — and also in the light of the high standards set by the Taoiseach for his Government on the day he assumed office. This Government came to office espousing transparency and accountability. To date, it has exhibited all the transparency and accountability of a Vatican conclave. I wish to share the remainder of my time with my colleague, Deputy Flood.
The time is all but exhausted. I ask Deputy Flood to be brief.
During the course of the Minister's reply to me when I raised this matter last week, she gave me a number of commitments, one of which was that she would contact me with regard to the reasons the Garda did not arrest the men as they ran from the court.
I am doing that tonight.
As of now I have not received that information, which is disappointing.
I am pleased to have this opportunity to set out to the House in detail the circumstances surrounding this matter. On Wednesday, 11 October 1995, Deputy Chris Flood raised the following matter on the Adjourment: "The seizure by gardaí of a number of dogs at Dublin Port suffering horrific injuries and the subsequent collapse of the court case against three named individuals".
As is normal practice, a report was immediately requested by my Department from the Garda authorities and duly obtained. The report set out the sequence of events leading to the arrest of the three persons in question and the subsequent court case. It appears there was some discussion in the court about where the alleged offences took place. The report stated:
The Sergeant argued on behalf of the State that the charges were adequate in substance and urged the Judge to exercise his power of amendment to read "within the State" if he were not entirely satisfied. The Judge refused the Garda's application and struck out the cases.
My response to the Deputy in the Dáil that evening was, in accordance with normal practice, based on the Garda report supplied, including the above reference to the prosecuting sergeant asking the presiding judge to amend the charges.
However, on the following day, Thursday, 12 October 1995, it came to my attention that the Garda report received by my Department may have been incorrect in so far as this point was concerned. Accordingly, I asked my Department to request the Garda authorities to re-examine the matter urgently. These inquiries concluded earlier today and I have now received a detailed report from the Garda authorities.
The report fully accepts that the prosecuting sergeant did not ask the presiding judge to amend the charges. It transpires that the prosecuting sergeant had made a verbal report on the afternoon of 10 October to an inspector who, subsequently, wrote a short synopsis of that conversation. Unfortunately, in the synopsis, the details of the submission made by the prosecuting sergeant to the presiding judge were misinterpreted by the inspector who prepared the report. It was incorrectly recorded that the sergeant had asked the judge to amend the charges. However, as I have stated, this was not the case. There was discussion in the court about the court's jurisdiction but, contrary to the understanding of the inspector on whose report my answer to the Dáil was based, the prosecuting sergeant did not ask the judge to amend the charges.
The Minister is now hiding behind the Garda.
The Minister without interruption, please.
I have already been in touch with the Judge to convey my regrets that I made a statement based on inaccurate information from the Garda. I regret also that I inadvertently conveyed information to the Dáil which was not accurate.
I also wish to take this opportunity to deal with a question raised by Deputy Chris Flood as to why the three persons were not rearrested following the striking out of the charges. From today's report, the prosecuting sergeant states that he did not attempt to rearrest as (a) the persons immediately left the court room, (b) in view of the questions raised about jurisdiction, he believed that the best course of action was to prepare a file and await the directions of the State solicitor and (c) to effect a lawful arrest he would have been obliged to obtain individual warrants from the courts and time did not permit this. In addition to these reasons, I am informed that official Garda instructions, dating from November 1993, stress the need in cases where the question of rearrest might arise to submit a file to the Director of Public Prosecutions for direction before proceedings are recommenced. This instruction is, I understand, based on consultations which took place with the DPP's office and I have asked the Commissioner to clarify with the Director the propriety of applying this instruction in cases where urgent action is clearly required.
I have impressed on the Garda authorities the absolute necessity of providing accurate reports in matters of this kind so as to avoid the confusion which arose in this case.
Will the Minister resign? She is hiding behind her officials.
I am not hiding behind my officials.
The Minister has condemned them out of her mouth.
There is no provision for further debate.