Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 12 Mar 2003

Vol. 563 No. 2

Ceisteanna – Questions (Resumed). Priority Questions. - Criminal Prosecutions.

Aengus Ó Snodaigh

Ceist:

123 Aengus Ó Snodaigh asked the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform his views on whether there are similarities between the case of a person (details supplied) in County Kerry, the details of which his attention has been drawn to, and the patterns of wrongdoing by members of the Garda Síochána emerging from inquiries in County Donegal; his further views on whether the circumstances warrant the establishment of an independent inquiry into garda misconduct in this case; his further views on whether such an inquiry would serve the public interest; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [7494/03]

Mr. McDowell

I am aware of the case to which the Deputy refers. I do not accept that the events which led to the establishment of the Morris tribunal have any bearing on this case. Neither do I accept that the circumstances warrant the establishment of independent inquiry into the matter.

In August 1989, the person in question, along with another individual, was arrested on suspicion of membership of an unlawful organisation. In November 1989, a file was submitted to the DPP who directed, in March 1990, that the person in question be charged in relation to firearms offences. Subsequently the Director of Public Prosecutions directed that no charges were to be proceeded with in relation to the person. The Garda Complaints Board investigated a complaint from the person and in April 1992 advised him that the board was satisfied that the matter had been thoroughly investigated and was of the opinion that neither an offence nor a breach of discipline on the part of any member of the Garda Síochána had been disclosed.

Following an earlier parliamentary question from a colleague of the Deputy and other correspondence received from members of the Deputy's party, I requested a report on the matter from the Garda Commissioner. When I have had an opportunity to consider the Commissioner's report, I will communicate further with the Deputy and his party colleagues in the matter, particularly in relation to their request for a meeting.

Aengus Ó Snodaigh

The person named in the letter is James Sheehan from Ardfert.

If, as the Garda claim, he was found with a gun in his car, it is strange he was never charged. Likewise, if ammunition was found in his house why was nobody charged? If Mr. Sheehan was not charged and was later informed—

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I ask the Deputy to refrain from mentioning names in connection with this question.

Aengus Ó Snodaigh

He was later informed by the DPP that the charges against him had been withdrawn, when he had not been charged in the first instance. Despite the fact that the named person has made continual inquires since his arrest why, if they existed, were the gun and ammunition destroyed, supposedly on 19 July 2000?

Mr. McDowell

There is a long tradition that the reputations of individuals are protected by the procedures of this House. I do not wish to become involved in a debate on the merits or demerits of a person's involvement with the Garda Síochána. I have asked the Garda Commissioner to prepare a report for me. When I have seen it, I will be in a position to draw my private conclusions on some of the questions raised by the Deputy. I have already indicated that at that stage, I will be in a position to decide whether to meet with the Deputy and other members of his party who have raised this issue. It would not be fair, especially as the Deputy has named the person, for me to go any further at this stage in discussing the merits or demerits of what happened in 1989. It was a long time ago and I am not in a position to pass judgment on where the truth of the matter lies.

Aengus Ó Snodaigh

I have referred to more recent incidents, such as the one on 19 July 2000. If matters were still under investigation or if the named individual was continuing to pursue his case it is strange that that the gun and ammunition were destroyed. It raises questions about the Garda complaints procedure, which has been shown to be ineffective. Thankfully, it has been suggested that it should be changed.

If the Minister believes that questions remain to be answered, there should be a public investigation or inquiry into this matter because there are similarities between it and the subject under investigation by the Morris tribunal. It may not require a big investigation.

Mr. McDowell

I am informed that the firearm in question was destroyed in 2000, along with several thousand other firearms which had been collected over the previous ten or 20 years. It may be inferred from what the Deputy has said that a decision was made to destroy a firearm which was the subject of a current investigation. That is not the case. No significance should be attached to the fact that from time to time, the Garda destroy firearms in bulk which have fallen into its possession.

I retain an open mind on these matters. The Garda complaints procedure, to which the Deputy referred, concluded 11 years ago. In view of this, I am not in a position to offer any fresh insights as to its adequacy until I receive a report from the Garda Commissioner.