Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 2 Feb 2000

Vol. 513 No. 4

Priority Questions. - Criminal Prosecutions.

Brendan Howlin

Ceist:

53 Mr. Howlin asked the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform the investigations, if any, into allegations made in a letter sent to the Director of Public Prosecutions and a Galway solicitor, apparently from a member of the Garda suggesting irregularities in the detention of a person who later faced serious arms charges in the Special Criminal Court and whose prosecution was subsequently dropped by a decision of the Director of Public Prosecutions; if he has received the report he indicated he was expecting from the Garda in view of his comments made to the media in Government Buildings of 13 January 2000; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [2687/00]

I am advised that the person in question was arrested under section 30 of the Offences against the State Act, 1939, on 27 July 1999 and was subsequently charged with offences under the Firearms Act, 1964. She first appeared before the Special Criminal Court on 30 July 1999. On 11 January 2000 the Special Criminal Court was informed that the Director of Public Prosecutions had decided not to proceed with the prosecution.

In September, 1999 the DPP received an unsigned letter alleging that irregularities had occurred during the detention of the person concerned in Garda custody. The Director, in turn, referred the letter to the Garda Commissioner who, notwithstanding the fact that no complaint of any kind had been received from either the person in question or her solicitor, appointed a senior Garda officer to investigate the allegations. That investigation is continuing and I am informed by the Garda authorities that it is anticipated that the investigation will be completed in the near future. Clearly, it would be inappropriate for me to make any further comment on this aspect of the matter pending the completion of the investigation. Bearing in mind some misleading public comments that were made, the decision not to proceed with the charges in this case was not linked to the contents of the anonymous letter. That decision was made by the Director of Public Prosecutions on the basis of the Garda investigation into the importation of firearms.

Does the Minister of State accept that transparency in the prosecution service is a vital prerequisite to an efficient, effective and democratic justice system? There have been serious failings in this regard in other cases, such as the Nora Wall case, in recent times. Does the Minister of State accept there is a particular onus on her and on the Minister to ensure there is transparency and accountability in relation to prosecutions? Does she further accept that there is a distinction between the decision of the DPP not to initiate a prosecution and the cancellation of a prosecution already initiated which would merit some degree of explanation? We have heard for the first time that the cancellation of the prosecution was not determined by the actual letter received. How does the Minister of State know that because, under the law, she is no more entitled than I am to know the reasons for the cancellations of prosecutions?

Transparency applies in all cases. The Deputy will appreciate that it would be wrong for me or the Minister to go behind the decisions of the DPP. However, it would be a matter of public concern if charges were to be dropped because of the manner in which a person was treated while in Garda custody. My Department was informed by the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions that there was no link between the contents of the letter and the Director's decision not to prosecute.

Was there a query to the DPP about the cancellation of this prosecution or was it at the initiation of the DPP that this information was forthcoming? Will the full contents of the correspondence between the Minister and the Director of Public Prosecutions be put on the record of the House?

I queried the Department as to whether we were certain that there was no link between the contents of the letter and the Director's decision not to prosecute, which is the issue at hand. I was informed by the Department's officials that the Department was informed by the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions that there was no link between the contents of the letter and the Director's decision not to prosecute. I hope the Deputy accepts that it would be wrong of us to go behind the decision of the DPP.

I will pursue the precise reason for dropping this case another time. On the Garda investigation of the contents of the letter, does the Minister of State accept that the anonymous letter received had an official Garda station stamp? Has that matter been investigated? Can the Minister of State confirm or deny the letter originated in a Garda station?

The Deputy will understand it is clearly inappropriate for me to make any further comment on the matter pending completion of the investigation.

When will we have a result?

I am told by the Garda authorities that it is anticipated the investigation will be completed in the near future. We should await the outcome of that before we go into the details required by the Deputy. The Garda will come back to us on the investigation in the near future.

Will the Minister come back to the House?

Barr
Roinn