Vol. 879 No. 2
106. Deputy Niall Collins asked the Minister for Justice and Equality if she will provide an update on the independent review of certain allegations of Garda misconduct; the estimated time of completion of the report; the proposed steps arising from the report; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [19575/15]
This matter was previously the subject of a priority question by Deputy Mac Lochlainn and the Minister for Justice and Equality gave an update about six weeks ago. We have not heard much since then so I am asking for an update on where we are.
The mechanism established for the independent review of certain allegations of Garda misconduct was an unprecedented step by this Government to bring independence and objectivity to bear on the examination of those allegations, some of which go back to 1969 and many of which pre-date 2000. A panel consisting of two senior and five junior counsel was established for this purpose with all members selected on the basis of their experience of the criminal justice system. They have been asked to examine the papers in each case with a view to determining whether further action is warranted and practical.
A total of 319 complaints were referred to the panel of counsel. Obviously, the volume and complexity of cases has changed the timeframe and has led to the review taking longer than originally anticipated. We wanted counsel to take time to examine all of the cases fully and carefully. Indeed, the number and variety of cases make the work of counsel all the more important. There are many cases which have already been through some form of process, whether that involves the courts, GSOC or some other body.
The issues involved in the cases also range considerably, from tragic deaths to property disputes.
While the review of all of the allegations is not yet complete, my Department has received the recommendations of counsel in a significant number of cases. I have received the first batch of submissions on these cases and clearly, as I said previously, I want to start the process of writing to everyone concerned as soon as possible. I will consider the recommendations of counsel extremely seriously and cannot easily imagine circumstances in which I would not follow such recommendations. In communicating with individuals I am also anxious not only to set out the recommendation of counsel and my decision on it but also to outline as far as possible the reasons for the recommendation subject to any legal constraint there may be.
The legal advice of counsel contains, in many instances, comments on third parties and great care will have to be taken in setting out the main points. Therefore, I have decided to appoint a former judicial figure to advise on the preparation of the letter and the communications to the complainants. It is better to take that time now so as to provide complete reassurance on the probity and independence of the entire process from start to finish. That is the best way to communicate the decisions of counsel.
While it would not be appropriate to publish individual recommendations, I have considered how best information on the outcome of this process could be made public. In this regard, I have asked counsel, in addition to making recommendations in individual cases, to produce a general overview of the issues and trends which featured in this process. That may lead to the identification of issues and recommendation for change across a number of areas which I hope will enable us to address some of the general and thematic concerns raised by those persons whose cases were examined by counsel.
The Minister will appreciate that this process has been dragging on for a considerable period. In the past 24 hours I have received communications from two of the 319 people affected, one of whom came to my clinic in Limerick yesterday, while I received an e-mail this morning from another individual whose case was subject to review. At a minimum, the fact that the Minister has now engaged a former member of the Judiciary to help draft a reply should be communicated to each of the 319 people involved. They are concerned because they believe the process is drifting. Prior to this they had lost confidence in the processes of State and now this process seems to be dragging on. That is what they are saying to me. Obviously, I have reassured and relayed to them what I have heard from the Minister on the issue. I have spoken to them about her positive disposition to arrive at the truth for them. Will she consider giving them, when they receive their formal reply, an opportunity to interact and engage with somebody on the review panel? The opportunity to have face-to-face contact or engage in direct correspondence has been absent from the process. People made their submissions and their cases are being judged on them, without any follow-up or further interaction. That is a bone of contention for some and it must be addressed.
I welcome the Deputy's comments on wanting to get at the truth for the people concerned and to have the best process in place to examine their complaints. The complaints, in many instances, are about cases that have been in a variety of places, including before the Director of Public Prosecutions, through the courts systems or GSOC. The cases that have been referred to the process are complex. There were very wide criteria and it involved all of the cases that appeared to be relevant, although some that have been referred fall outside the terms of reference. It was never intended that the process would include face-to-face meetings. It was always to involve a review of all of the work that had been done and all of the papers relating to the cases involved to ascertain whether, on the basis of an objective, independent legal review, recommendations should be made in terms of a follow-up. I will take up the Deputy's point about communicating with complainants.
The Minister should not close the door on the option for her, her Department or members of the review panel to engage with people face-to-face afterwards.
That should not be ruled out at this point. The Minister is right in saying that many of them pertain to people who have been through some of the legal processes. Without getting into detail I can tell the Minister of one complaint brought to my attention. A person has sworn an affidavit that no court registrar was in court on the day that person was in court, but the Courts Service is disputing it. So there are cases where the system or the State claims one thing and yet a person is willing to swear and can bring witnesses to back up their position. At this point I urge the Minister to reconsider.
I mention one case in particular, the Sarah Bland case. I ask the Minister or one of her departmental officials to make contact with Ms Bland. She has been back on a number of occasions and I know the Minister has had extensive correspondence with me and others on her case. She is seeking a face-to-face meeting with the Minister and I ask her to take that on board.
The Minister's time has already been taken in the question.
107. Deputy Pádraig Mac Lochlainn asked the Minister for Justice and Equality if she will immediately publish all submissions received by her Department in relation to the new policing authority, in order that Oireachtas Members can consider them, and to assist with potential amendments to the Bill as it moves through the Houses of the Oireachtas. [19811/15]
I believe I submitted a parliamentary question about the matter, but I wanted to raise it today. It relates to submissions made to the Department about the now published legislation for the new policing authority. Will the Minister publish all those submissions to assist Deputies, including Deputies Niall Collins, Clare Daly, Wallace and me, who will be engaging with the legislation through Committee and Report Stages, and so on?
The Deputy's question relates to submissions received. I am making arrangements for all submissions to be published in the next couple of days. I will put all the relevant material - there is a lot of it - on the Department's website, www.justice.ie. They were taken into account in the preparation of the Garda Síochána (Policing Authority and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 2015, which I published last week. The new Bill provides for the establishment of the independent policing authority to oversee the performance of the policing functions of An Garda Síochána and it is at the core of our reforms in the justice area. It is a fundamental reform of policing oversight in Ireland. It is the most far-reaching reform of An Garda Síochána since the foundation of the State.
As we will be discussing in the House, it allows a new independent forum for the public oversight of policing services in Ireland. In particular, under the new arrangements senior gardaí will report to the authority on the performance of policing services, including by way of public meetings. The authority can provide a key role in being an engine to drive reforms of the policing system and practices to ensure that An Garda Síochána is fit to meet the demands of 21st century policing.
The new Bill is awaiting Second Stage in the Seanad and I look forward to its passage through the Houses. Approximately 30 submissions were received from a wide range of groups, including the Deputy's party. They will all be on the website in the next few days.
I welcome the Minister's confirmation. I express concern over a few areas. Garda Síochána officers, to whom I have spoken over recent years, have told me there is an issue in terms of a meritocracy over recruitment. This applies not just to senior officers but goes through the ranks. We need better oversight not just of the appointment of assistant commissioners up to the Commissioner but also to include promotions to the level of sergeant, inspector, superintendent and chief superintendent - from the very bottom to the very top.
While the police board in the North of Ireland appoints senior officers in the North, it also has oversight of the recruitment and promotion process throughout the ranks. I seek reassurance on that.
Even at present there is misunderstanding about some of the appointments. The most senior appointments are subject to an independent process at present, with a lay chairperson and two lay members of the panel. Clearly what we are doing with the new policing authority represents a sea-change on appointments. The authority will now have responsibility for overseeing the process of those senior appointments.
That is quite a change. The authority will be responsible for selecting the process to be used. It is expected that, in some instances, it will use the public appointments service and, in others, the body which oversees public appointments generally. It now has the authority to make the decision on how the process will be conducted. There have been suggestions of politicisation in Garda appointments, but I certainly have no experience of this, nor did my predecessor. To ensure the transparency people now demand, the police authority clearly will have a critical role.
The difficulty is that the legislation does not address the appointment of sergeants to the position of superintendent and, possibly, chief superintendent. That is where there is a big issue. I submitted ten questions to the Minister six months ago. Her response at the time was that she would refer them to the Garda Commissioner, but I have yet to receive responses to them. My concerns are around the level of oversight by the Department and, soon I hope, the police authority of the entire promotions process in An Garda Síochána. In the context of the debate on reform, this needs to happen from the bottom up, including how people are promoted, with independent oversight. I have concerns about this issue, as reflected in my questions. I ask that they be responded to as soon as possible.
My second concern relates to the independent adjudicator, an issue we dealt with in the context of the Garda Síochána (Amendment) Bill. If the police authority asks questions of An Garda Síochána and it responds that it cannot provide information for security reasons, an independent adjudicator, namely, a judge, rather than the Minister, should oversee the process so as to remove any accusation of a Minister being too close to the Garda and so on.
These are the two issues I want to flag as being of concern to me.
The Deputy is getting into the detail of the Bill. No doubt, we will have a robust discussion on these issues when the Bill is brought before the House. It is extremely important that the Garda Commissioner has operational responsibility and is independent in dealing with operational issues. Obviously, a particular number of appointments come within the internal process within An Garda Síochána and it is envisaged that this will continue up to a certain point. We can have further discussions on this issue during the course of the passage of the Bill.
This is the first time a definition of "security" has been set out in legislation. There is, for example, clarity and a clear exemption for advocacy in order that people will not think we are using the definition of security, for example, to say peaceful protest would not be allowed. This is very important and will help in appropriately deciding what comes within the remit of policing because uniquely in this country An Garda Síochána deals with policing and security issues.
108. Deputy Mick Wallace asked the Minister for Justice and Equality her views on concerns that two Garda whistleblowers (details supplied) who made complaints of Garda malpractice over one year ago have still not had an investigation of their complaints completed; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [19803/15]
The Garda Commissioner, Ms Nóirín O'Sullivan, has said any garda who wants to report wrongdoing in the force will be welcomed. Sadly, Garda Nick Keogh and Garda Keith Harrison have not been welcomed. It is over one year since they made their complaints. Both have been treated shamefully since. Does the Minister have any problem with the contrast between how those who make complaints are treated and how ##those against whom complaints are made are treated because the latter are treated far better by the hierarchy in An Garda Síochána?
Before calling on the Minister to respond, I remind Deputies of the need to refrain, where possible, from naming individuals in the House. Regardless of the context, it is my preference that they avoid doing so.
I have permission to do so.
By way of background, as the Deputy is well aware, prior to the Protected Disclosures Act 2014 coming into operation, whistleblowing by members of An Garda Síochána was provided for under the Garda Síochána (Confidential Reporting of Corruption or Malpractice) Regulations 2007 which provided for the appointment of an independent confidential recipient. The confidential recipient was then required to transmit each confidential report to the Garda Commissioner.
Only where a confidential report contained an allegation which related to the Garda Commissioner was it transmitted to the Minister. In transmitting a report, the confidential recipient had to be aware of the obligation to protect the identity of the whistleblower, and any communication between the confidential recipient and the whistleblower was confidential and was not conveyed to the Minister. The regulations provided that any harassment or intimidation of a member who had made a confidential report would be dealt with in accordance with the law. This system was replaced by the Protected Disclosures Act 2014, which came into operation in July 2014 as part of the Government's comprehensive approach to enhance the protection available to whistleblowers, including Garda whistleblowers. GSOC was prescribed under the Act as a body to receive protected disclosures.
With regard to the two cases referred to by the Deputy, I first make the point that all of us in this House must be very careful in discussing individual cases of whistleblowing. The Protected Disclosures Act prioritises the confidentiality of the process, a confidentiality which is not always easily reconciled with some discussions in the House. However, I am advised by the Garda authorities that reports in both of the cases referred to by the Deputy were originally received under the confidential recipient regulations. One of the cases is the subject of a comprehensive criminal investigation and upon completion may be the subject of a report to the Director of Public Prosecutions. The second case was subsequently referred to GSOC under the Protected Disclosures Act 2014.
I know that the Deputy will appreciate that I have no functions in regard to criminal investigations that are ongoing, to the submission of files to the DPP or in regard to the investigation of complaints by GSOC. In regard to both of the cases the Deputy referred to, one is the subject of a current criminal investigation and the other has been referred to GSOC.
I am not going to discuss the details of the complaints, so I will not be prejudicing any case. In regard to the latter case referred to, the Minister spoke about a confidential report. In the case of this particular garda, there was supposed to be an internal investigation. Nóirín O'Sullivan handpicked two individuals to look after the internal investigation, but what did they do? They leaked the information to the alleged perpetrator. They leaked it. They have concrete evidence of it. What happened was - I am not talking about the case itself - they went then-----
Will the Deputy pause for a moment?
There is a serious allegation there.
He has already named the individuals, therefore, what he is saying is directly linked to-----
But I am not discussing the case.
I am sorry, but the Deputy is. I ask him to be careful as to what he says.
I will be careful. The garda was told then that he should refer the matter to GSOC and it said "Ye were the ones who damaged the internal investigation, so ye do it." Eventually they did it in September. In September 2014, it was referred to GSOC by Nóirín O'Sullivan but zero progress has been made to date. In the meantime, this particular garda has had a Garda car go down his boreen 19 times this year alone to intimidate him and his post has been opened. He has been treated like a criminal.
I note the Deputy has raised allegations about these cases on at least two occasions with the Taoiseach, on 28 January and on 31 March and on both occasions the Deputy was asked to provide information in writing if he has it.
That is not true. I was not asked about any information, Minister.
Please refrain from interrupting.
The Deputy has made some serious allegations. There are independent processes available to members of An Garda Síochána and the Deputy is aware the Government has introduced new legislation under the Protected Disclosures Act. I have told the Deputy there is a criminal investigation under way. If there is information available, such as the Deputy has put forward in the House today, that obviously needs to be part and parcel of the criminal investigation that is going on. For the Deputy to make the suggestions he has made in regard to proactive leaking on this case is a serious allegation.
Obviously, every criminal investigation is serious and there is a criminal investigation going on in one case. In the other case, there is a GSOC investigation.
Surely those cases should be allowed to be dealt with via the process of the criminal investigation and the Garda Síochána Ombudsman Commission, GSOC, report on those that is currently taking place. The floor of the Dáil is not the place to be discussing the detail of those cases when there are processes, rules and legislation set up to deal with the concerns of whistleblowers in An Garda Síochána and other bodies.
I can only presume that the Minister has been ill informed because the process is not working for these two Garda whistleblowers. I am not saying that is the Minister's fault. I am saying it is not working for them, and they have been treated abysmally. Both of them are out sick much of the time. They have suffered terrible intimidation. They are stressed. Garda Keogh has been sent to the surgeon in the Phoenix Park headquarters as an intermediary measure. It is crazy to say there is a process in place that works for these people. They are not getting any feedback. There is no communication with them. The only communication they are getting is bullying and intimidation. I am not saying it is the Minister's fault. I am saying the system is not working. I am sorry but it appears to me that the Minister is not being kept accurately informed by An Garda Síochána. These people are in a bad place, and they need help and protection.
Thank you.
Sadly, given that we have not changed the hierarchy of An Garda Síochána it is difficult to see things changing until we see-----
Thank you, Deputy. Please take your seat.
-----new faces running the force.
I repeat for the Deputy that the new protected disclosures legislation, which became operational in July 2014, is intended to provide precisely the sort of robust framework that is necessary and under which workers can raise concerns, and that includes members of An Garda Síochána. An Garda Síochána is committed to that and has informed all members of the force of it. In another question I am asked if members of An Garda Síochána are aware of the changes. They have been made aware of them. The legislation we have brought in, which is the framework under which these complaints are being dealt with, reflects best international practice on dealing with whistleblower protections, which I agree with the Deputy are a very serious issue. Both gardaí can make their points within the force in regard to their current experience. I am informed that all of the actions that need to be taken to investigate their complaints are being taken.
109. Deputy Niall Collins asked the Minister for Justice and Equality if she will provide an update on the operation of the witness protection programme; if operational concerns have been raised with her; her plans to review the programme; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [19576/15]
I am tabling this next question on the State witness protection programme because I have been speaking to two people who are former participants of the scheme and some of what they told me I find concerning. I am asking the Minister if she can provide us with an update on the operation of the State witness protection programme; if any concerns have been raised with her; and if she has any proposals on the future of the scheme.
The Garda Síochána has operated a witness security programme since 1997 to respond to attempts by criminal and other groups to prevent the normal functioning of the criminal justice system, including threats of violence and systematic intimidation of witnesses. Given the highly confidential nature of the programme and the need to maintain the protection of persons who receive support, it has been the policy of successive Ministers for Justice, for obvious reasons, not to set out the procedures of its operation in detail and certainly not to go into the details of specific cases. I can say that the programme has been and is used in a significant number of cases and has proven its value in helping to secure the conviction of very serious criminals while at the same time protecting individuals who have assisted in securing those convictions.
For the Deputy's information, admission to the programme is considered by a high level group that comprises senior gardaí and a representative from the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions and it assesses the range of legal, security and other issues. The operation of the programme is kept under constant review.
In particular, the question of how to provide a statutory framework of guidelines for the programme is under consideration by my Department. The Deputy will appreciate that trying to strike an effective balance between an appropriate legislative framework while maintaining the necessary confidentiality and flexibility in the operation of the programme is a complex matter. Some issues relating to persons who have received support under the programme are among those being considered under the mechanism for the independent review which we discussed earlier. I should make it clear, however, that persons who have concerns about their personal safety should bring those concerns directly to the Garda Síochána and that the security measures that should be put in place for an individual is an ongoing operational decision for the Garda Síochána.
As I said to the Minister, a number of people, at least two, Dave Mooney and Joey O'Callaghan, contacted me and gave me their permission. Both of them have told me they do not have criminal backgrounds or history and participated in the scheme for the right reasons, to give evidence to convict people who were involved in criminality. Their central argument is that what they say was agreed with the witness protection programme but the support offered to them after they had fulfilled their side of the agreement was not upheld by the State. Unfortunately, they have had to engage with GSOC and their solicitor, Kieran Kelly, and I find much of what they told me disturbing.
Joey O'Callaghan sought a meeting with the Minister and it is a matter for her whether she can meet him. At the very least, would the Minister consider asking the Garda Inspectorate to carry out a review of the witness protection programme to see how it is operating? In the Minister's reply, she has told us it was operating at a high level within the Garda Síochána. In a reply to a parliamentary question, the Minister told me the witness protection programme costs approximately €700,000 per annum. Could the Comptroller and Auditor General undertake a value for money review to see where the spend is going? Some of what these people have told me about how moneys have been spent should ring alarm bells within the Minister's Department.
If the Deputy has any particular information he would like to forward to my Department, he should do so. It is not appropriate for me to go into the details of individual situations in the Dáil. Any intimidation of witnesses is an offence under section 41 of the Act, which specifies the offence as harming, threatening or menacing or in any other way intimidating or putting in fear another person who is assisting in the investigation of an offence by the Garda Síochána with the intention of causing the investigation or course of justice to be obstructed, perverted or interfered with. It is punishable by imprisonment of up to ten years.
As I said, it is a very sensitive area and is under review by my Department and, in the first instance, this is how it should be handled. Given the small size of the State and the population and the closeness of communities here, the operation of the witness protection arrangements presents particular challenges. Striking the right balance between the appropriate legislative framework and maintaining the absolute confidentiality and flexibility in its operation is a key concern. In the first instance, it is most appropriate to continue the review within the Department and then, perhaps, other possibilities such as the Deputy suggested could continue at that point.
We have received different reports about different activities of the Garda Síochána and reviews carried out by the Garda Inspectorate. They have been greatly welcomed by every Member in this House and beyond. They have given some very insightful advice on how systems can be improved in terms of giving a better service to the people. I urge the Minister to take seriously my suggestion about the Garda Inspectorate and the two individuals to whom I referred. It would go a long way towards informing the Garda Inspectorate if it met with them or their legal representatives to hear their experiences of participating in the witness protection programme.
110. Deputy Pádraig Mac Lochlainn asked the Minister for Justice and Equality the reforms she plans to introduce to make the State fully compliant with Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights, given that Articles 1 and 2 of the convention, when read together, require a proper and adequate official investigation into deaths resulting from the actions of State agents, both from the use of lethal force and in situations where the negligence of agents leads to a death. [19812/15]
Is the Minister satisfied that the State is compliant with Article 2 of the European Convention of Human Rights? Taken together, Articles 1 and 2 place a particular responsibility on the State to investigate deaths in suspicious circumstances, whether at the hands of State agents or others. The Joint Committee on Justice, Defence and Equality and the Joint Committee on Public Service Oversight and Petitions will shortly hold joint hearings to obtain the views of a range of delegates, including Mr. Michael Finucane, the Irish Council for Civil Liberties, people researching the systems in place in England Wales and a coroner in this state.
Ireland takes very seriously its obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights. In particular, we are concerned to ensure the right to life, as stated in Article 2, when read in conjunction with Article 1, is respected and vindicated. As Minister for Justice and Equality, I am conscious of the responsibility which this brings, in particular because of my functions as they relate to an Garda Síochána and the Irish Prison Service. There is an obligation on the State to thoroughly investigate deaths which result from the use of force by State agents or in circumstances in which individuals die while in the custody or care of the State. The mechanisms whereby the death of an individual in such circumstances is investigated have changed in recent years. These changes have ensured Ireland is in a position to meet all of its obligations under the convention. Our commitment to complying with the convention was made explicit with the introduction of the European Convention on Human Rights Act 2003.
Under section 102 of the Garda Síochána Act 2005, the Garda Commissioner is required to refer to GSOC any matter that indicates to him or her that the conduct of a member or members of An Garda Síochána may have resulted in the death of or serious injury to a person. GSOC which is fully independent and has extensive powers of investigation is obliged to directly investigate such fatalities. This process is compliant with Article 2 of the convention. Since 1 January 2012 the death of any prisoner in custody is the subject of an independent investigation by the Inspector of Prisons. The Office of the Inspector of Prisons is a statutory independent office established under the Prisons Act 2007. The inspector's investigation and reports are part of a three pronged process, the other elements being investigations by An Garda Síochána and investigations and inquests conducted by coroners. The inspector is satisfied that the combination of these processes meets the requirements under Article 2.
If one reads Article 2 with Article 1, there is a broader challenge for the State. I will use as an example the case of Mr. Seamus Doherty who was murdered in Donegal in 2012. I have raised this case previously with the Minister at Question Time. In recent days Mr. Doherty's daughter, Caitriona, was in contact with me. She is on the verge of taking legal action against a range of bodies. She cannot have the coroner's hearing dealt with or apply to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Tribunal because the investigation is still live. She made a complaint to the Garda Síochána Ombudsman Commission about the conduct of the investigation and the serious questions that arose in respect of it. However, the ombudsman can only refer cases to the Garda Commissioner with an opinion on whether disciplinary action is required. She cannot get answers two years after the murder because of the way the system has been designed. Many coroners are critical about the need to update the Coroners Act 1962. The bereaved next of kin of victims are suffering indignities for several years as they try to get answers and, in some cases, challenging the State agencies tasked with carrying out investigations. Radical reform is required. I ask the Minister and her departmental officials to pay heed to the hearings of the Oireachtas committees and examine the issues brought to our attention.
I will ask my officials to study the transcripts of the committee hearings to determine the issues arising. I acknowledge that the 1962 Act needs to be revisited and that that process commenced seven years ago under a previous Government.
I have had a number of meetings about that piece of work.
The Coroners Bill 2007, to which I referred, proposes to extend the matters which can be investigated by the coroner, from investigating the approximate cause of death to establishing in what circumstances the deceased met his or her death. I take the Deputy's point that when an investigation is ongoing it can be difficult to get answers from other bodies. While the investigation is current there is a real difficulty and it is not easy in any circumstances to see how that can be dealt with. If the Deputy can give me the individual details, I will see what policies issues arise concerning the points he has made.
The other case that has led me to pursue this matter is that of Jake McGill-Lynch who in 2013 tragically took his life with a weapon in his own home. His family have been pursuing the issue of whether medication could have had an impact on his mental health that led to that scenario. It is devastating for this family, too, who are locked in a process through the coroner's system. The coroner's oversight is very limited when people question how the HSE or doctors dealt with their deceased family members. This poses a big challenge and, in fairness, it will take some time to address. I ask the Minister to be aware of the fact that many families have suffered a double bereavement of loss and then feel they are not getting justice for their loved ones. The system chugs along, yet never quite gives them the answers they need.
Just last week, I held a meeting with about 50 representatives from a variety of victims' groups. I also held a meeting of criminal justice agencies to discuss the implications of the victims' directive, which has to be legislated for later this year. The implementation of that legislation will have a strong impact on some of the points the Deputy has raised, including the relationship between victims and various elements of the criminal justice system. In addition, it will give better information to victims and keep them informed.
As regards the Deputy's point about the use of medication, there are real concerns that this is not sufficiently incorporated by some of the bodies examining deaths. However, as the legislation on the victims' directive is introduced and begins to be implemented, it will have serious implications for behaviour in all of these bodies, whether it is the coroner's court or elsewhere within the courts system. Responses to victims will need to be much more robust and, in addition, victims will need to be told what their rights are. Representatives of the criminal justice agencies will be expected to have much better contact with victims.
