I am pleased, sir, that you have given me the opportunity to raise this matter. The Minister of State will remember that the case involved a stonemason from the constituency of my colleague, Deputy Perry, who was wrongly arrested and falsely imprisoned for an alleged larceny when he found and reported as lost a wallet containing cash. This striking example of zero tolerance reflects an attitude on the part of the State which refuses to accept that a mistake may have been made. This blind refusal to settle a case until the matter opened before the High Court following a two year legal battle warrants a detailed explanation on the part of the Minister.
This case has remarkable similarities with the treatment of Emerald Meats by the Department of Agriculture, Food and Rural Development which was outlined on national television last week and which led to an early curtain being drawn over Dáil proceedings last Thursday. We see public officials in both cases across a range of offices taking breathtaking liberties with public money. If civil servants in the Department of Agriculture, Food and Rural Development had been digging into their own pockets to fund the action in the Emerald Meats case it would have been settled a long time ago. Similarly if the Garda, officials in the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform and the Minister had been providing money from their own resources the Sligo case would not have proceeded to court but would have been disposed of long before the two years had elapsed between the issuing of proceedings and the settlement.
Was the settlement on the part of the State arranged with or without an admission of liabilty on the part of the State? I want details of public money expended or promised, including the question of costs. How much taxpayers' money is at stake in this case? The public and this House are entitled to know the full extent of the settlement as the money used to facilitate it is public property. The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform has the ultimate responsibilty to taxpayers for the spending of money in his Department.
Why was the State exposed to this liability and who is responsible? Has the Minister sought a full report from the Garda Commissioner on the matter? There is a need for a full and detailed explanation of this issue, setting out in clear and unambiguous terms why the case was not settled earlier and who refused this wronged man an apology. Who in the Garda Síochána made these decisions and why? Why did the Garda Commissioner, the Chief State Solicitor, the Attorney General or the Minister not intervene to ensure an early settlement of the issues involved? All these people appear to be so arrogant that a simple act of apology was refused on numerous occasions. The victim, who was treated like a criminal for three years states that the stress arising from this treatment was damaging to his health and adversely affected his well-being. I accept this.
The victim made it quite clear that he had no interest in compensation. This good Samaritan merely wished to have his good name restored. He was merely performing a civic duty in attempting to locate the person who lost the cash in the first place.
We need to learn lessons from this case as to the manner in which taxpayers' money is expended and to ensure that citizens are not exposed to such torment as was the victim in this case. The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Refom owes our citizens an explanation and he owes the victim a public apology. I hope the explanation and the apology will be forthcoming without delay.
