I welcome the O'Farrell family to the Chamber. It is not easy for them. I call on the Minister for Justice.
Final Report of the Independent Scoping Exercise into the Circumstances surrounding the Death of Mr. Shane O'Farrell: Statements
I thank the Leas-Cheann Comhairle and welcome the opportunity to have statements in the House today on the report of retired Judge Gerard Haughton, arising from the scoping exercise into the circumstances surrounding the tragic and untimely death in August 2011 of Shane O'Farrell, aged 23, in a hit-and-run incident involving a car driven by Zigimantas Gridziuska, the individual referred to in the report as "ZG".
The sudden loss of Shane at such a young age, with his whole life ahead of him, is a desperate tragedy for all those who knew and loved him, and one that will always be an immense source of grief in their lives. Like many in the House today, I have met the O'Farrell family and know how much they feel his loss every day. I too want to acknowledge their presence in the Gallery this afternoon.
As Deputies are aware, the background to the Government's decision to establish the scoping exercise was in response to the desire of these Houses for further examination to be conducted into the circumstances of Shane's death. I thank Judge Gerard Haughton, who conducted the scoping exercise with diligence, including throughout the Covid-19 pandemic, and all of those who co-operated with this process. The final revised terms of reference for the scoping exercise were finalised in July 2019 by the then Minister for Justice, Deputy Charles Flanagan.
The terms of reference required Judge Haughton to advise the Minister for Justice on whether there were any circumstances surrounding the death of Mr. O'Farrell that warranted further investigation or inquiry beyond those already carried out, and separately, whether an inquiry was necessary into the systems and procedures for the sharing of information between An Garda Síochána, the Courts Service and other relevant State bodies operating at the time of Shane O'Farrell's death. It was Judge Haughton's requirement that where a further inquiry was recommended, he should also suggest the form of any such investigation or inquiry, provide a draft terms of reference, and then suggest the composition of the investigation or inquiry. The position of the Government was always that Judge Haughton was free to make any recommendation he saw fit, and I as Minister for Justice did not direct, and certainly was very open to, any recommendation that was made in this report. The terms of reference were finalised based on advice from the Attorney General. Judge Haughton helpfully set out these matters in his report, including publishing both original and revised terms of reference.
Regarding the conduct of the scoping exercise, I recognise that the report took almost three years to complete. I know this was longer than people would have anticipated. I understand that this was due to Judge Haughton's desire to be as comprehensive as possible and in part due to the impact that Covid-19-related restrictions had on the judge's ability to engage with all of the necessary parties.
When Judge Haughton submitted his final scoping report to me on 1 June 2022, I then sought the advice of the Attorney General about the issue of publication. Subsequently, my colleague, the then Minister for Justice, Deputy Harris, brought the final report to a Cabinet meeting on 25 April 2023. At that meeting, the Government noted the final report of the scoping exercise before it was laid before the Houses of the Oireachtas and before its publication on 3 July. Understandably, the O'Farrell family has been very prominent and engaged with the scoping exercise, and I sincerely thank them for their engagement.
As Members will be aware, last November, the then Taoiseach, Deputy Micheál Martin, and I met members of the O'Farrell family regarding the content of the report and its publication. The former Minister for Justice, Deputy Harris, met members of the family in May of this year. The Government is very mindful of the O'Farrell family and their loss. As I said at the very outset, I know how challenging and distressing this has been over the past several years. I know how difficult it has been and want to acknowledge that.
It is clear from reading the report that Mr. Justice Haughton carried out a very thorough review of all relevant material and has produced a robust and measured report. The 416-page report is comprehensive, setting out all the issues within the terms of reference in some detail. I understand that, having fully engaged with each issue raised, Mr. Justice Haughton concludes no further investigation or inquiry is warranted beyond those already carried out. The report pays attention to the circumstances of the tragic incident itself and sets out the elements that contributed to it. In setting out the circumstances, Mr. Justice Haughton has been forthright in his view that a variety of factors contributed. The judge also finds that there are no circumstances in the context of granting, objecting to or revoking bail, or the monitoring of compliance with the conditions of bail, that warrant further inquiry. He makes a similar finding about the systems and procedures for the sharing of information between the Garda, the Courts Service and other relevant State bodies operating at the time of Shane O'Farrell's death.
Mr. Justice Haughton makes several recommendations regarding bail, suspended sentences legislation, amendments to the Road Traffic Acts and notices of appeal administered by the Courts Service. For example, the report acknowledges that new legislation has already been introduced in respect of both bail and suspended sentences. The Department will complete an initial examination of legislation in this area shortly as part of its continuous review of the criminal law to identify whether any further legislation or amendment is required in respect of suspended sentences and bail, or both. My officials are engaging with stakeholders on the procedural matters raised by the judge to determine how they might be progressed.
While the State's bail laws do provide for the refusal of bail in certain circumstances, the presiding judge is entirely independent in the exercise of his or her judicial functions, and the decision to grant bail in a particular case is solely a matter for the judge. An Garda Síochána advises me that the State's amended bail laws have proven to be effective. All legislative provisions are, of course, kept under review.
The Government agreed just this morning to progress the recommendation on charges of careless driving in the forthcoming road traffic Bill. It would, of course, have been very much open to Mr. Justice Haughton to have recommended a tribunal of inquiry, a commission of investigation or an inquiry under section 42 of the Garda Síochána Act if he had found that such an inquiry was warranted. There has been a criminal trial, Coroner's Court involvement, an independent review mechanism, a GSOC investigation and the Haughton scoping exercise concerning the tragic death of Shane O'Farrell. The independent report by Mr. Justice Haughton does not provide a basis for the Government to establish an independent inquiry.
I want to turn to a couple of issues raised by the House in recent weeks. The first concerns the holding of a file within the Garda National Crime & Security Intelligence Service regarding Zigimantas Gridziuska. I note that Mr. Justice Haughton deals with this in his report and he concludes that he was entirely satisfied with the co-operation he received from An Garda Síochána on this matter. The second issue concerns the return of an exclusion order regarding Mr. Gridziuska that was imposed in 2013 and that expired earlier this year. I have spoken to Shane O'Farrell's family about this matter in recent weeks and I undertook to engage with An Garda Síochána. To date, the Garda has not located the individual. If his whereabouts become known, I will of course examine this issue again. In such cases, a very clear process must be followed. To make a further exclusion order, the person in question must be notified of the Minister's intention to make it and must be given an opportunity to make representations to him or her in this regard. However, I will commit to examining this matter again if the individual's whereabouts become known.
I am grateful for the opportunity to speak on the matter this evening. I recognise that the outcome in the report is not what Shane's family and those who speak in support of them want. I regret that this is where we find ourselves today. I can commit that the Department of Justice, other Departments and State bodies will continue to focus on implementing the technical and procedural recommendations set out by Mr. Justice Haughton in the report.
I am sharing my time with Deputy Mary Lou McDonald.
I welcome the members of the O'Farrell family to the Gallery. The Minister has met them previously. Anyone who has met them knows there is going to be a public inquiry into why the man who killed Shane, who should have been in prison at the time, was not in prison and the handling of the case by State agencies before and after Shane's death. The reason we know this is that the O'Farrell family is simply never going to give up.
The Minister mentioned in her opening remarks that the scoping exercise was in response to the desire of this House to examine the death of Shane O'Farrell further. That is not true. This House and its desire were explicitly clear. This House voted for the establishment of a public inquiry. The scoping exercise was actually a mechanism to usurp the desire not only of this House but also that of the Upper House.
The Minister referred to the trial, the Coroner's Court, the GSOC investigation and the scoping exercise as if all of them amounted to an in-depth analysis of why the person who killed Shane was at large on the night of the killing. In each and every one of these, pivotal and vital information was denied to the court or investigative body. This information was subsequently unearthed, not by any State body but by Lucia O'Farrell and her family. Every single time that anomalies have been pointed out, there has been an acknowledgement of mistakes and lessons to be learned, with the statement that we will ensure it does not happen again. This will happen again unless we get to the truth in this instance.
On 11 January 2011, seven or eight months before Shane was killed, Mr. Zigimantas Gridziuska appeared before Monaghan Circuit Court. He had pled guilty to charges of theft and stealing property in 2010. The case was adjourned for one year. The judge actually said Mr. Gridziuska had been free of conviction apparently since the last occasion this happened, which was July 2010. He said he was advised Mr. Gridziuska was clean of drugs since November of the previous year and he proposed to adjourn the case until January 2012. The judge clearly did not have the full facts because Mr. Gridziuska was not free of conviction since July 2010. On every single occasion that he appeared before a judge in a court, vital information that would have led to a different determination by that judge was not conveyed to him or her. Mr. Gridziuska was in breach of multiple bail conditions of multiple courts. A short period before Shane was killed, Mr. Gridziuska was actually stopped by members of the Garda. He was the passenger in the car in which he was travelling. That car was unroadworthy. None of the individuals in the car was adequately insured to drive it and they were well known to gardaí. The action of the gardaí on the night was not to ask those in the car to get out of it, confiscate the car or do what I would argue would be done to any Member of this House in a car of the same nature and in similar circumstances but to ask Mr. Gridziuska to move from the passenger side of the car to the driver's side to drive. For several years up to half an hour before Shane was killed, there were anomalies and serious questions as to why such activity continued to happen or why vital information was withheld from the judge every single time Mr. Gridziuska was brought before a court. Every single time there was an interaction with the Garda, this guy got off, effectively scot-free. The only time he did not get off entirely scot-free was when he was convicted north of the Border and was expected to serve a short custodial sentence.
While he was serving that short custodial sentence, he was supposed to be signing on every day as part of his bail conditions, yet no one seemed to ask why he was not. The scoping exercise does not get to the heart of that fundamental question.
The Minister mentioned there was a file on Mr. Gridziuska in the Garda national crime security and intelligence service. We do not know what is in that file. It goes to the heart of the questions that have arisen. I mentioned the last time we discussed this that the view of anyone who looks objectively at the litany of failures of our judicial and policing system in holding this man to account for his multiple breaches of our laws, is that there was a relationship akin to that of an informer. Yet, no report the Minister mentioned, including those of the trial, the Coroner, the Garda Síochána Ombudsman Commission, GSOC, or the scoping exercise has adequately addressed that question. Was the man who killed Shane O'Farrell, Zigimantas Gridziuska - I state on the record again that he was solely responsible for the death of Shane O'Farrell - an informer for An Garda Síochána? If that question cannot be answered, it is clear that none of the examinations that have taken place has got to the core of this issue. The only way we will get to the core of the issue and the only way we will ensure this never happens to another family is if we have a public inquiry as has been decided by this House and the Upper House and as has been correctly demanded by the O'Farrell family. I urge the Minister again. She has a litany of reports on her desk the recommendations of which she has ignored. Will she ignore the recommendation that there is no need for further examination of this matter? There clearly is.
For 12 long years, Lucia and Jim O'Farrell have lived every parent's worst nightmare. In the summer of 2011, their beloved son, Shane, was left to die on the side of a Carrickmacross road. He had been blown off his bicycle in a hit-and-run incident. A life full of love, promise and potential was cut short. All Shane's tomorrows were wiped out in the blink of an eye. He was only 23 years of age. It is hard for any of us to imagine what life is like for Jim and Lucia without their son or for his four sisters without their brother. Every day since Shane's tragic death, they have faced the pain and profound loneliness of the empty chair. It is a trauma that would shake the soul and foundation of any family to its core.
Despite their anguish and for more than a decade, the O'Farrell family has courageously fought for the truth about what happened to Shane. Tonight, I welcome the family to the House and express my admiration for their bravery, endurance and resilience, and for their refusal to abandon justice for their son and brother. I wish them solidarity and strength for the future and for the fight that is as yet unfinished. The O'Farrell family continues to walk a long, hard, painful road and all too often are met with stone walls and silence. Where the State should be facilitating this family to get to the truth, barriers and hurdles are erected time and again and the State has circled the wagons.
As my colleague, Deputy Carthy, stated, it has been alleged for a long time that Zigimantas Gridziuska was a Garda informer. He was a criminal with 42 criminal convictions who should have been in prison when he knocked down Shane and left him to die. Serious questions as to how this man was not behind bars at that time remain unanswered. If he was where he should have been, he would not have hit Shane with his car. Five years ago, the Dáil supported a motion for a public inquiry into Shane's death. Far from being an avenue to truth, the scoping exercise established by the Government has proven to be yet another barrier. It is crystal clear now - it has always been clear - that the only route to the full truth and full justice for Shane and his family is the full public inquiry this House backed as far back as 2018.
We should not forget that the ultimate responsibility of the State is to protect and vindicate the rights of citizens. On that score, the O'Farrells have been failed time and again. Quite frankly, that needs to be put right so that Shane's memory can truly finally rest in peace.
I have asked for copies of the Minister's script to be distributed. They are on the way.
It would ensure accuracy when commenting.
Shane O'Farrell was just out for a training cycle when he was knocked down and killed in August 2011 in County Monaghan. We in the Labour Party extend our condolences again to Shane's family. The pain caused by his death has been exacerbated by how needless it was. There are many moments during which it seems obvious, if the State or agents of the State had acted differently or had intervened at many different moments, Shane could still be alive. The O'Farrell family has been steadfast and persistent in their pursuit of justice for Shane and accountability for system failures that have been exposed by his death. They want to try to prevent this happening to anyone else and they are not prepared to be fobbed off by anything other than a full, independent inquiry.
I was delighted to meet Shane's sister, Hannah, in Raheny and his mother, Lucia, in recent weeks.
I am conscious of the separation of powers and that Deputies are not in a position to make legal judgments on the facts of any case. It is the job of the Legislature to draft the best possible laws to be interpreted in the best possible way. It is the Judiciary’s responsibility to interpret the legislation and the Government’s job to ensure the laws are being properly and effectively implemented. It is the collective responsibility of all three to ensure that citizens are protected as much as they can be and that the three branches are working effectively and held accountable to public scrutiny.
In a case like this, there are so many procedural and legal questions about interaction in the legal system, questions around the interaction between the legal system and An Garda Síochána and questions around the effective practical implementation of legislation by the courts and An Garda Síochána, that there is no doubt that some sort of investigation into the case was warranted. To this end, a scoping exercise was convened to determine whether a public inquiry should be held. The objective of this scoping exercise was:
to identify whether or not any complaints/allegations, errors, flaws or issues arising from the circumstances surrounding the death of Shane O’Farrell are of such a grave and serious nature as in the public interest to:
(a) warrant further investigation or inquiry beyond those already carried out;
and
(b) to advise the Minister for Justice and Equality whether any inquiry is necessary into the systems and procedures for the sharing of information between An Garda Síochána, the Courts Service and other relevant State bodies operating at the time of Shane O’Farrell’s death.
In order to fulfil these terms of reference, it seems clear that Judge Haughton has gone to great lengths to examine the detail of the case. The result is a report which goes into far more detail in answering questions than might be expected. It goes into so much detail that to call it a scoping inquiry seems no longer accurate. We have been presented with judgments on the facts of the case itself. Crucially - this is why the Labour party believes the scoping inquiry has already established a need for a public inquiry - the case has been made by virtue of the detail deemed necessary to address the points raised. The judge obviously realised the requirement for a comprehensive examination and adjudication.
In hindsight, it would have been better if a recommendation had been made at an early stage that a full public inquiry be made into the case. Instead, the judge attempted to prevent the need for that inquiry with a 200 page report of his own. Unfortunately, we are left with a report which presents as a complete investigation, but which has not been subject to the full rigour of scrutiny that a public inquiry would have brought. The fact that such a report was deemed necessary seems to be clear evidence that the threshold originally established was met.
I understand the reticence of the Department of Justice in wanting to limit the use of public inquiries due not only to the financial expense but also to the necessary investment of time and expertise such cases require. A public inquiry cannot be the means of first resort every time there is a controversy or that political pressure is exerted. Nor should a public inquiry be convened due to the power or influence of the people involved. There are, however, cases where the circumstances raise such concerns that a public inquiry is necessary, cases where the issues at stake are so important that they need to be examined in a public manner. I am not only thinking of this case, but also the unrelated case of Terence Wheelock and even the ongoing coroner's inquest into the Stardust fire in which, for too long, families have been denied comprehensive public investigations.
In the Stardust case it had become immediately apparent to all of us that this coroner's inquiry should have happened, as a bare minimum, many years ago. In the case of Terence Wheelock, his death in custody deserves a public inquiry as the case raised so many questions about how a young and healthy man lost his life in Garda custody.
In this case it is clear that many questions remain for the O'Farrell family. As legislators there is no way we can or should seek to prejudice the outcome of an inquiry, and I do not propose to pick through the detail of the judge's report but in the case of Shane O'Farrell ample questions are raised by the recommendations of the judge alone to warrant a public inquiry, and we note that the Irish Council for Civil Liberties agrees with this stance. We agree with the O'Farrell family that Shane's case raises serious issues with the criminal justice system around bail, previous convictions, coroner's inquests, the effectiveness of GSOC and transparency around the use of informers by members of the Garda. There are also clear legal issues which remain unresolved. We agree with the O'Farrell family that the Government should commit to what the Oireachtas resolved to do, namely have a public inquiry. It is important to be clear that the answers we get may not be the ones we want to hear. Nobody can guarantee that even a public inquiry will result in the answers, accountability and closure the family deserve but the least we should do is provide them with a comprehensive and public process to try our best to get there. I as justice spokesperson for the Labour Party and my party leader, Deputy Bacik, will continue to support the O'Farrell family in their campaign.
I wish to again extend my sincere sympathy to the O'Farrell family on the extremely sad loss of their beloved son and brother, Shane. Suaimhneas síoraí dá anam dílis. The O'Farrell family has campaigned and continues to campaign tirelessly and with the utmost grace and dignity, seeking justice for their son and brother. They have asked legitimate questions and those questions have not been answered. We debated this serious issue in this House in 2018 and subsequently the scoping inquiry was established. Shane died following a fatal road traffic accident in County Monaghan in August 2011. He was killed in that hit and run by Mr. Gridziuska, a man who had 42 previous convictions, who was on bail in respect of several offences and who had breached the conditions of his bail. That man should not have been at liberty, to say the least. Instead he was driving a vehicle that was involved in a hit and run, resulting in the death of a fine young man.
It is practically incredible to think of the litany of his offences and the number of times he was before our courts. On 11 January 2011 he was in Monaghan Circuit Court. On 9 May 2011 he was in Monaghan Circuit Court again. Two days later he was in Dundalk Circuit Court. On 8 June, a few weeks later, he was in Carrickmacross District Court. On 14 July 2011 he was convicted of theft in Newry, and brought back before Monaghan Circuit Court. On 25 July 2011 he was convicted of having no tax disc in Monaghan District Court. All of the above offences should have resulted in that man's bail being revoked but no steps were taken by the Garda to ensure that happened. He was well-known to An Garda Síochána, Interpol and the PSNI. His record was an extensive one of criminality, with more than 40 previous convictions for a variety of offences. No matter how we debate these issues, and no matter at what length, there is a fundamental question that the scoping report does not answer. That question is how the person who killed Shane was at large on 2 August.
Shane was not responsible for his death. Speeding offences are not trivial. The least the O'Farrell family deserves is to get the truth on how there was such a litany of dereliction of duty on behalf of State agencies and officials regarding the man who drove that vehicle that caused Shane's death being at large on that day. Those questions have not been answered in any respect in the scoping report.
Shane O'Farrell from Carrickmacross was tragically knocked down and killed while cycling near his home in Carrickmacross on 2 August 2011. He was aged 23 and had just completed his final year law exams. The driver, Zigimantas Gridziuska, should have been in prison at the time, and since then the O'Farrell family has campaigned tirelessly to uncover all of the facts concerning the circumstances surrounding his tragic death. It has to be said that the State and its institutions did not make this task easy for them, and they have been treated badly.
The Department of Justice eventually established a scoping exercise which was carried out by Judge Gerard Haughton. The report took over three years to finalise and it was eventually published in July. The O'Farrell family are deeply disappointed with the report. They believe it is incomplete and inaccurate, and I am in agreement with many of the points they have made about it since then. They believe the report does not deal with all of the matters included in the terms of reference and they point out that it did not consider the GSOC reports or the independent review mechanism report. They are disappointed that there appears to be victim blaming and that it could be interpreted that Shane was the guilty party. The report also makes findings which have not been tested the way they would be in a commission of investigation, which is the point Deputy Ó Ríordáin made.
The Dáil and Seanad have already voted to establish an independent statutory public inquiry into the circumstances surrounding the death of Shane O'Farrell. It would be in the public interest to examine the systems and procedures for the sharing of information between the Garda, the Courts Service and other relevant State bodies in the context of this case. The functioning of the criminal justice system as regards bail needs comprehensive examination, given the widespread failures highlighted by this case. Most people, if they were aware of the full details of this case, would be shocked by it. The family is also requesting details of all communications between the Department of Justice and the scoping inquiry before, during and after the publication of the report, and their request in this regard should be facilitated.
The concerns raised by the O'Farrell family on this report need to be addressed and the family needs to be listened to. I urge the Minister to do this and to urgently address these matters. Otherwise these questions will continue to arise and these events and the case will not simply go away.
I welcome the O'Farrell family. I was down this kind of road when, in opposition, I was Dublin spokesperson, with the Stardust families and inquiry. I put several questions as Dublin spokesperson and I had several motions, as did many Deputies before me in previous Parliaments, to be told by Minister for Justice after Minister for Justice that everything that could be done had been done, and that every avenue that could be explored had been explored. I had to go back and face individual members of those families, lead them on a merry dance and tell them that we had exhausted the process. I said I had tried all avenues and that we had exhausted the process. Then I woke up one morning to read that an Attorney General in the previous Government had made a decision that an inquest could be heard. That will not happen a second time; that is the first point I will make.
The second point I will make is as follows. Why does a Dublin Deputy have any interest in this case? For me it is mainly due to the man behind me, Deputy McGuinness, who has raised this consistently in the previous Parliament and in the one before that. He made such an impression on me that I travelled to Carrickmacross to meet Lucia and her husband Jim. If this story was not true it would make a thriller. The manner in which Lucia O'Farrell and her family have investigated this would leave even the most proficient forensic scientist or detective in the ha’penny place. They have unearthed a litany of errors, travesties and absences of connection between the judicial system, the Garda, the Probation Service and the bail service that even if you only had one question - and that was nothing to do with Shane but with the system - it would be if it happened in this case, how many other cases do these kind of errors happen in.
For that reason alone, we need to delve deeper into this.
The final point I want to make in the appallingly brief time Parliament affords us to go into these issues, unfortunately, relates to a comment made recently by the Ceann Comhairle, Deputy Ó Fearghaíl, when he was talking about the security of politicians. One of the points he made that made an impression on me was that it might help us a little from a security point of view if we followed through on the commitments we made and if, more often than not, we did what we said we would do.
I support everything Deputy Brendan Smith said about the unanswered questions that have been left here and that the family deserves to have answered.
I compliment the O'Farrell family for their dignity and determination to find the truth about what happened to Shane and the lead up to those events. Having met Lucia, Hannah, Gemma and the rest of the family a number of times, I know the depth of their knowledge and insight is matched only by their commitment to their quest for justice.
Last week, we attended a cross-party briefing facilitated by Deputy Carthy. Taken alone, many of the issues raised at that meeting pertaining to this case may not have been enough to call for an inquiry but taken together, the whole issue needs an inquiry to address the various issues properly. The perfect storm that led to the death of Shane could happen again. That is not good enough.
We have the issue of the Courts Service error, which meant that Mr. Gridziuska did not serve one of the sentences for which he was convicted and there were clearly failings that meant the appeal was not heard. In fact, he received two prison sentences which he never served. There were also failings in respect of the conduct of the Garda and questions about its relationship with Mr. Gridziuska. I heard the Minister say that the Garda co-operated with the scoping exercise but questions over that relationship have not been answered properly. Why did gardaí stop Mr. Gridziuska an hour before Shane died? Why did they not act on the command made to the State by Judge O'Hagan that if Mr. Gridziuska were to get into any more trouble, he was to be brought back before him immediately? Why did all of that not happen? An inquiry is the only place those questions can be answered.
An inquiry should also look into the circumstances and events surrounding his death, given the many issues involved. The functioning of the bail system must, of course, be a particular focus. I do not believe that the scoping report satisfactorily covered that matter. I am not calling for new legislation in respect of bail but it is clear that when someone like Judge O'Hagan specifically asks for a defendant to be brought before him if there were to be reoffending, and there was a lot of reoffending in this case, there is something wrong with the system. Mr. Gridziuska was on bail from various courts, including Ardee, Carrickmacross, Monaghan and Newry. No one seemed to be in control of the procedures and managing them in the proper way. That should be looked into by any inquiry in order to prevent it happening to another family.
The raft of reoffending and the lack of oversight tally with what Lucia says. There are clear problems with the granting of bail and its revocation and they need to be addressed. I agree 100% with that.
We are currently living in a worrying time with regard to road traffic offences, given what has happened over recent weeks and months. The number of deaths and injuries has been increasing. There has been commentary on the lack of consequences for people who have offended. It is hard to go back to those people and tell them they are wrong when there do not seem to have been adequate consequences, particularly in this case.
There are other issues with section 101 of the Garda Síochána Act that do not allow a family to have access to the investigation. Perhaps that issue could be looked at. Statements to the coroner are another issue. Ultimately, I support the O'Farrell family. I feel the scoping exercise has investigated but has not provided all the answers to the family. We hope no other family will have to go through such an experience.
I also welcome the O'Farrell family to the Gallery. This House voted for a full public inquiry into the circumstances around the death of Shane O'Farrell. The Government decided on a scoping report which has concluded that no public inquiry is to be recommended. While the scoping report was far from a public inquiry, the expectation of most of us in this House was that all of the issues and key reports would be considered fully in the context of this scoping exercise. The terms of reference provided that Judge Haughton would be provided with section 101 and 103 reports from the Garda Síochána Ombudsman Commission, GSOC. The independent review mechanism report was also to be fully considered. The judge was not provided by either report. He did not seek the GSOC section 101 report and the Department refused to waive privilege over the independent review mechanism report. The terms of reference required Judge Haughton to take account of the outcome of the independent review mechanism. The report was provided to him by the family because, as I said, the Department of Justice did not waive privilege. Despite that, the report does not appear to have been considered in the scoping report.
In one of his conclusions, the judge stated it is understandable that the family is aggrieved at not being provided the section 101 GSOC report and that, ultimately, any changes are for the Legislature. This is cold comfort to the O'Farrell family. It might be an issue to which we will come back.
At over 400 pages, this is a lengthy report. There are key questions remaining. If this was a complete report, which is what we expected, why are there still key questions? Those of us who have met the O'Farrell family, and particularly Lucia, Shane's mother, know that one of the key questions they have asked repeatedly is if the criminal justice system had worked as it was supposed to, would Mr. Gridziuska have been in custody at the time he killed Shane. That shines a light into how the criminal justice system works or does not work. It is at odds with how most people think the criminal justice system works. When someone is ordered, for example, to sign on at a Garda station, most people would expect that to happen. However, that requirement was repeatedly breached. There was no such signature from 4 April until 2 August, the date Shane was killed. What is that supposed to mean? What is the purpose of requiring people to sign on? What is the sanction for not doing it? When a sentence is imposed by the courts, the public expectation is that the sentence will be served, at least in part. In the case of someone appearing in court when he or she is out on bail, it is, according to a report of the Courts Service, the role of the prosecuting authority to bring to the attention of the court any convictions, bail or court orders that the court needs to be aware of prior to reaching a decision on the case before the court. The report goes on to state that the outcomes of District Court cases are transmitted electronically from the Courts Service's criminal cases tracking system to the Garda PULSE system via the criminal justice interoperability system. Why did that not happen? Was this an isolated case? If it was, it raises questions as to why there was special treatment. Was this man an informer? If he was, he should have been told "No". If the answer does not come out as bluntly as that, why would we not continue asking that question?
On the evening Shane O'Farrell was killed, Mr. Gridziuska had 34 convictions across three jurisdictions and had been on continuous bail since 28 August 2009. He was on bail for at least six offences and had committed at least 30 offences while on bail, as a result of which he was brought before various District and Circuit Courts on numerous occasions. During those hearings, the judges dealing with the cases were not informed by the gardaí or the prosecution that Mr. Gridziuska was in breach of his bail conditions. Perhaps the most damning was in 2011 when he appeared before the Circuit Court on theft charges. Judge O'Hagan adjourned the case for one year and continued Mr. Gridziuska on bail on condition that he stayed out of trouble and did not commit any further theft offences.
The court said, "If he does get into trouble again, it will come straight before me, anywhere on the Circuit, wherever I may be ... I can assure you ... if you do mess ... up and ... get convicted, you will be going to prison; not you might, you will be going to prison." He committed 11 offences between this order and the killing of Shane O'Farrell and on no occasion did An Garda Síochána return to Judge O'Hagan. Had that happened, he would have been in custody at the time Shane O'Farrell was killed. The O'Farrell family and others have said it here. They have been absolutely forensic in the approach they have taken. Not only is it in the interest of the O'Farrell family that there is a public inquiry but it is also in the public interest. There are so many anomalies and things that did not function. We need to know whether this is an outlier or if other situations like this are occurring.
I welcome Lucia, Jim and other members of the O'Farrell family to the House. Sadly, they have been here on many occasions previously. The reason we stand here 12 years on from Shane's death is that this family feel they have not had answers or accountability. Until they have those, they cannot have closure. That is what this House is for - to give the general public confidence in our justice system. This family certainly have not received that yet.
Speaking on behalf of the O'Farrell family, the reason for this discussion is that they feel a fundamental question has not been answered to explain why Mr. Gridziuska was at liberty on 2 August 2011 in circumstances in which, for a period of two years, he repeatedly committed offences while on bail and breached bail conditions imposed upon him in both the District and Circuit Courts and why, despite An Garda Síochána being aware of these breaches, he was still at large to commit a series of offences. Colleagues from different parties and from across the House went through the number of offences this man committed, of which there more than 40. It is worth going through some of those offences because it reveals how shocking it was that this man was still at large, on the roads and in a position where he could cause the death of a bright young man going about his daily exercise in Carrickmacross.
Mr. Gridziuska committed numerous offences and breached bail bonds, having been brought before the court for more than 40 offences. On 11 January 2011, only eight months before Shane was killed, Mr. Gridziuska had been convicted of theft in Monaghan Circuit Court. This sentence was adjourned for one year, with the judge stating that if he was convicted of another theft or fraud offence and he was before him in court again, he would be jailed. This was only eight months before he killed Shane. Some four months earlier, on 9 May 2011, Mr. Gridziuska was convicted of theft. He was not brought back before Monaghan Circuit Court where a prison sentence would have had to have been activated and he would not have been on that road on that awful day in August. Two days later, on 11 May 2011, in the Dundalk Circuit Court, Mr. Gridziuska was convicted of speeding. On 8 June 2011, Mr. Gridziuska was convicted of the possession of heroin in Carrickmacross District Court. On 14 July 2011, Mr. Gridziuska was convicted of theft in Newry and again he was not brought back before Monaghan Circuit Court. On 25 July 2011, Mr. Gridziuska was convicted of not having a tax disc in the Circuit Court in Monaghan. All of these offences should have resulted in his bail being revoked, but no steps were taken to ensure that happened.
The car in which Mr. Gridziuska was travelling was pulled over by An Garda Síochána an hour before he killed Shane. The vehicle had been driven by an uninsured driver and it was not national car test, NCT, certified either. However, rather than seize the car, which I am sure everybody in the House will agree would have been the normal course of events had it been anybody else, Mr. Gridziuska was selected to switch from being the passenger to being the driver. The gardaí failed to consider whether Mr. Gridziuska had valid insurance for the vehicle and to take the opportunity to arrest him for the bail breaches he had collected. As my colleagues have said, Mr. Gridziuska was well known by An Garda Síochána, Interpol and the PSNI and had an extensive criminal record, as has been very well laid out today.
I have met Lucia and Jim and their daughters on a number of occasions. As my colleague, Deputy Lahart, very eloquently put it today, they have done forensic, detailed research and investigation on all of this. I am in awe of what they have done, and had to do, for the sake of their family and to bring justice. They have worked tirelessly to seek justice, which the system should have provided them - they should not have had to work this hard in the first place - for their son and brother. They are to be commended on the courageous and dignified way in which they have done that. All they ask is that we stick to our commitment in the Oireachtas to give them a full public inquiry, accountability and justice.
I welcome, as others have, the O'Farrell family to the House. I have had the pleasure of meeting Lucia on a number of occasions. I have to admire the relentlessness, steadfastness and energy she brings to the cause of justice for her son. The O'Farrells are a very impressive family who could teach all of us in here a few things. My local Green Party colleague and representative, Tate Donnelly, introduced me to Lucia. I thank him for that introduction and for the work he has done to support the family. As I said, meeting Lucia and such a brave, strong family has been a wonderful experience.
As I only have a short time, I will not go into the details of the report, which has been explored by many of my colleagues. It is very long but let us not confuse the length of the report with completeness. Quite simply, we have terms of reference that do not seem to have been followed. We have questions that should have been asked that never were asked. We have reports, such as GSOC report the Minister mentioned, that should have been explored and about which there were questions, yet the GSOC report was never even sought by the judge. Time was spent exploring questions that were not asked. There are questions, thanks to the forensic research of the family, about the independence of the whole process as well. There are legal questions as to whether a scoping exercise can, in the light of jurisprudence, make such bold claims and final determinations. It would seem that under Irish judgments, it cannot. We have a report that does not seem to follow its own term of reference and does not answer the questions it is meant to answer but answers a load of random questions and then does not seem to comply with Irish law.
As I said, let us not confuse the length of this report with completeness. It seem this report is deeply incomplete and deeply flawed and, as many Deputies have argued, should not be considered the last word on this matter and should not even be considered much further. What we need is what this House and the Upper House recommended, namely, a full public inquiry. Only then can we truly explore these issues in a full public arena with the ability to cross-examine, dig in and demand real answers to the questions that were meant to be asked. Only then can we actually get truth for Shane and his family.
I pay tribute to the O'Farrell family and commend their dignity in their quest for truth and justice for Shane. Shane O'Farrell's family deserve the truth. They deserve to know why and how the man who killed him, Zigimantas Gridziuska, was out on bail at the time he killed Shane in a hit-and-run incident on 2 August 2011. At the time, Mr. Gridziuska had 34 previous convictions across three jurisdictions. He had been on continuous bail since August 2008 even though there were multiple breaches of the bail conditions. Shane's family have established that there is a file on Mr. Gridziuska in the Garda national crime and security intelligence service, but they do not know what is on that file. They deserve to know. They deserve to know, as suspected by many due in no small part to the existence of this file, whether Mr. Gridziuska was a Garda informant.
This case raises very serious questions for the Garda, the Department of Justice, the Courts Service and the Director of Public Prosecutions.
It raises serious issues about the criminal justice system, around bail, previous convictions, coroner's inquests, the effectiveness of the Garda Síochána Ombudsman Commission, and transparency about the use of informers by members of the Garda. These questions need to be investigated in an open, transparent and independent manner.
In 2018, the Dáil supported a motion calling for the establishment of a public inquiry. This was followed by the Seanad supporting a similar motion in early 2019. Instead of this, the then Government initiated a scoping inquiry which it later amended to become a scoping exercise. However, this scoping exercise did not provide for any input from Shane's family into the terms of reference. In fact, the report acknowledges that the family's attempt to have some input into the terms of reference was ultimately totally disregarded. Not only that but in July 2019, Mr. Justice Haughton received comprehensively amended terms of reference from the Minister that were considerably more restrictive than even the Department's original terms of reference. As if this was not bad enough, instead of answering the fundamental questions of why and how Mr. Gridziuska was at liberty on 2 August 2011 in circumstances where, for a period of two years, he repeatedly committed offences on bail and breached bail conditions imposed upon him in both the District and Circuit Courts, and where members of An Garda Síochána were aware of these breaches, the report has, according to the O'Farrell family, adopted a victim-blaming narrative in which Shane has no voice.
The outcome of this scoping exercise has left Shane's family, in their own words, very disappointed and, as they point out, it has left many outstanding matters unanswered. The family brought the matters to the attention of Mr. Justice Haughton, the Minister for Justice and her Department. It seems to me and many others that the purpose of this scoping exercise was not to get to the truth of this matter but, in fact, to delay and deter the truth from coming out. This has been about protecting the State and its agencies. What is needed and what the Minister should establish without delay is what both Houses of the Oireachtas supported, namely, a fully independent, open and transparent public inquiry. Nothing less will be good enough.
I too welcome the O'Farrell family. We have spoken about Shane many times over the last seven or eight years. One does not have to have a forensic mind to understand that Shane O'Farrell should have been alive today. We should not even be speaking about him but because of systematic failures in all strands of the authorities, Shane is dead and we cannot bring him back. There is one thing that we can do, as legislators and friends of Shane and the O'Farrell family, and that is to bring justice and some solace to the family after 12 years of absolute hurt. The scoping exercise did not bring any answers. In fact, it raised more questions than answers. An exercise such as that, which went on for so long, has led to more questions about that fateful night.
If a man who had breached his bail conditions so many times had been imprisoned or had his liberty taken away on any of those occasions, this incident would never have happened. That begs the question as to why he was allowed to breach his bail conditions on so many occasions while the authorities allowed him to go free. On the night in question, Shane had the liberty to cycle and exercise, as most of us do, but the man who killed him that night should not have been at liberty. As a result of the authorities failing Shane and his family, Shane is dead.
The least the Minister can do is call for a public inquiry. That is the least she can do. I think there is a consensus among all Deputies, Opposition and Government, in calling for a public inquiry. A public inquiry will give the family some sort of solace and answers about the independence of the scoping exercise. Anything less is doing an absolute injustice to the O'Farrell family.
We should note at this stage of the discussion that we still do not have a copy of the Minister's statement to the House. It is therefore difficult to accurately quote what she had to say. We know where Fine Gael stands because it voted against the motion proposed in 2018. As we can see, apart from the Minister, there is not one Fine Gael Deputy here. It is important that we note that because the Opposition and Members of my party are here to set on record what we believe in. Are we leading the O'Farrell family along another length of road where nothing will be done for them? The least that should be done is to hold a public inquiry. The judge's report needs to be withdrawn immediately and we need to rely on what the House demanded in 2018. The House's demand, which was proposed by my colleague, Deputy Jim O'Callaghan, was for a public inquiry. That was the overwhelming view of the Dáil and Seanad at that time.
During the debate in 2018, our party leader, Deputy Micheál Martin, stated it was time for action. I agree with that. In 2017, commenting on the case again, he stated: "The entire case reveals shocking malpractice and dysfunction in the criminal justice system at all levels." If, as I do, the Minister believes in that in its entirely, there is an obligation on her to ensure that any of the errors in legislation are rectified, perhaps by bringing new legislation before the House.
The decision the House took on the night of the debate was on holding a public inquiry. After that, the judge was asked to do a scoping exercise. He was not asked to give judgment, which is what he did. Like other Members, I could go through all the cases relating to the man who killed Shane O'Farrell on the road that night, but I will not do that because they have been well rehearsed here by other Members.
I ask the Minister to remember that Shane O'Farrell had just finished college. He got a first in his master's degree. He was looking forward to travelling a bit of the world but not too far because he was very much attached to his family. He was loved by his family and friends. He was often referred to as "Wordsworth O'Farrell" because of his general knowledge about all sorts of things when going through college. We had an ordinary man going about his business, cycling his bike. In the introduction to his report, the judge made great play of where Shane was situated on the roadway when he was knocked down. He also made great play of the fact that Shane did not have a light on his bike. Then he quoted legislation on how and why you would be breaking the law if you did not have a light on your bike. The cyclist, Shane, was clearly marked, at the front of his bike and at the back. Any driver paying attention would have seen Shane O'Farrell on his bicycle.
Hear, hear.
Hear, hear.
That is a fact. The judge, in saying this in the report, is doing nothing else but throwing in information about Shane O'Farrell so that, at the end of the report, he could actually blame him. That is far from the truth and it is far away from what he was asked to do. The man who killed Shane O'Farrell had 42 convictions but Shane had no light on his bike. The man was known to the gardaí and known to be involved in drugs, but Shane had no light on his bike.
The car had no national car test, NCT, which was known to the Garda one hour beforehand, but Shane had no light on his bike. He drove away from the scene of the accident and hid the car in a ditch near his home, but Shane had no light on his bike. I find all of that commentary despicable. I reject it. I again ask the Minister to now remove that report from the Library or wherever else it is held so that we can get to the truth.
If all of us believe in the truth, as we expressed we did in 2018, there is an obligation on the Minister to consider what the judge had to say but then to decide what is in the best interest of justice for Shane, the O'Farrell family and the country. We would never have known that this man should have been in jail at the time he killed Shane O'Farrell were it not for that accident. We would never have known about the litany of errors in the court system, the failure of the Director of Public Prosecutions, DPP, the failure of the Garda and now the failure of the Department of Justice. If we stand for truth and for doing the right thing, I would like to hear the Minister say in her closing remarks that while she will listen to what she has been told by the judge, she will do what this House demanded, which is to have a public inquiry.
There are 4,000 prisoners abroad who all want to come home to serve out their time in Ireland. This man, having done all of this, was asked whether he wanted to serve his time here or wanted to go home. I have never heard anything like it. You have to read the detail of the case as investigated by Lucia O'Farrell and her family. It was not the State that conducted the investigation. It was Lucia O'Farrell and her family. We owe it to others who might be affected by all this failure, and to the next generation, to set in place a system of justice that will be transparent, that we can believe in and that will not cause the issues it has caused for the country and the O'Farrell family. As politicians, we should not be afraid to take that decision. The Minister has the support of the majority of the House to do that. Rather than having statements that might be worthless or having closed-door conversations with the O'Farrell family, the Minister should come out bold and brave and put into action what other people in this House have said, namely, that there should be a public inquiry. Nothing short of that will satisfy the majority of us in the House. We will not allow another whitewash of the death of Shane O'Farrell.
Well said.
Many years ago, when I was the Sinn Féin justice spokesperson, I met Lucia and Jim O'Farrell for the first time. Lucia took a framed photograph of her beloved son with her, which was set up on the table during the meeting. I have been a public representative for about 21 years. In all those years, I have rarely seen somebody so impacted by an injustice. The darkness that was brought into this beautiful family was absolutely profound. They are a hard-working Irish family who have never done a thing wrong in their lives, but their beloved son was mowed down by a man who was a criminal on multiple occasions in multiple jurisdictions. Those in the justice system did not talk to one another. The Garda and the PSNI did not talk to each other. It is suspected that this individual was a Garda informer. There has to be some explanation for how in God's name all of this was allowed to happen and of the circumstances that led, when he was cycling near to his home on that summer evening, to Shane O'Farrell being mown down.
I join Deputy McGuinness in expressing my absolute outrage at the suggestion that Shane O'Farrell was responsible for his own death. God almighty. Has not enough injury been caused to this family without suggesting that the Road Safety Authority guidelines for cyclists should have been adhered to? I challenge anybody to walk around the streets of this city, watch cyclists go around this city and, if one of them was knocked down, to straight away say that as the cyclist did not technically adhere to the Road Safety Authority guidelines, he or she is responsible for his or her own death. This cannot stand. It cannot stand that we have a scoping exercise instead of a public inquiry. Both Houses have spoken and called for a public inquiry because the circumstances are so egregious and of such deep concern to every right-thinking citizen that such an inquiry is what is required. Instead, we have had a scoping exercise that has dragged on for years and has caused huge offence to the family because it stated Shane O'Farrell did not have a light on the back of his bike, as Deputy McGuinness said. Sweet God almighty.
All of us have an average level of intelligence. We can figure out for ourselves that there has been a profound injustice, in that this person should never have been unleashed in our community. He should have been behind bars. The justice system failed profoundly in that people in it did not talk to each other. However, it might even be worse. This person may have been protected. This person may have been an informer of this State. As for this person, who inflicted this unbelievable pain on this beautiful Irish family, this may have been covered up. That is why we need a public inquiry. Nothing else will do. This outrage of a report, the so-called scoping exercise, has to be thrown in the bin and the will of the Houses has to be implemented.
I, too, welcome the family of Shane O'Farrell to the Gallery. I again extend my deepest condolences to Shane's family. Shane O'Farrell's family have travelled a torturous journey since the death of their son. The loss of a child to any parent is probably the toughest experience that parent will go through. As parents, we are all wired to try to do the best we can and to protect our children. That Shane's death was preventable makes this all the more tragic for the family. The fact it was preventable, had the State done its job properly, is an indictment against the State regarding what has happened.
I give enormous credit to the O'Farrell family for their campaign for justice, not just for Shane but for their efforts to reform the justice system to ensure that this does not happen again to any other family. The manner in which the family have been treated in their quest for justice has been a disaster. The manner in which the O'Farrell family have been treated by the scoping exercise is absolutely wrong. The fact that Shane has been in part blamed for his own death is horrendous. That there should be any equivocation with regard to where the blame lies for his death is a gross insult to the family. I, too, add my call for this report to be withdrawn.
The State has grievously wronged this family, first and foremost by not ensuring the law was implemented in the first instances. We have heard the litany of dysfunction that has arisen in the case raised by many other Deputies in the House. Shocking failure after shocking failure has led to Shane's death. Gridziuska had 40 previous offences, including drug, theft and speeding offences, had breached bail conditions, and did not serve the prison terms he was meant to serve. That Gridziuska was allowed to break the law, seemingly with impunity, by the justice system in this State is incredible. The question is whether that impunity was arrived at by the State by accident or on purpose. That is a question that has to be answered by the State in the long run.
This level of dysfunction is an indictment against the justice system and the gardaí locally but worse still, it is an indictment against the Dáil because if we are to have a justice system that functions, we need a number of ingredients. We need truth, first of all, to find out what happened. If we do not have truth we can never have a system that actually works. The second ingredient we need is accountability. If there is no accountability, there is no justice, first and foremost. There is no change. There is no change in behaviour. If people know the actions they take will never be held to account those behaviours will never change within a system. The most worrying aspect of this is it is likely that this will happen again and again in the Irish justice system. Accountability can only be achieved when there is truth, when there is justice and when there is a guarantee there will be a cost to those who act in this fashion in the future.
It shocks me each time that there is such an instinct in the Government and in the institutions of the State to protect the institutions of the State and not the citizens we are meant to protect. This is not new. In every single case where we have had a group of citizens who were wronged, they have had to drag the Government, kicking and screaming, to finally achieve the public investigation or the tribunal that is necessary to achieve justice. Why is that instinct still so embedded in the Government's system? Truth and justice absolutely have not been achieved by this scoping exercise. The only way it will be achieved is by a full public inquiry into what happened.
This debate is happening against a background of many deaths on the roads at the moment. There have been 151 people killed on Irish roads this year, which is 36 more than were killed tragically last year. Information I received from the courts today shows that dangerous driving is on the increase, as are drug driving and speeding. This is happening today. We may feel we are talking about a case from a number of years ago but right now, these actions are worsening. One significant reason they are worsening is because the Garda police and roads section is weakening drastically at present. The number of gardaí currently policing the roads is at the lowest figure it has been for 14 years. Since Fine Gael came to office in 2011, it has fallen practically every year and right now is at the lowest figure of those 14 years. It is an incredible figure. There is no doubt but that the smaller the Garda force that is in place, the less likely it is able to police the roads or to influence the behaviour of drivers and the more likely we are to have deaths on the roads. I implore the Minister to publicly come out 100% behind the family to make sure they have all access to truth and justice, to make sure those who did wrong are held to account and to make sure something like this never happens again.
I will share time with Deputy Lawless. I welcome the O'Farrell family to the Chamber this evening, and I also commend them, in particular Lucia and Jim, on the tireless work they have done in exposing failings in the criminal justice system. The failings they exposed were not simply failings in respect of the tragic death of Shane but they are also more general failings in the system as a whole. As Deputy McGuinness mentioned, I was the Deputy who moved the motion back in 2018 that got the approval of this House to have an inquiry in respect of the death of Shane O'Farrell. We then had to wait until early 2019 for a decision to be made by the then Government that it would commence what was referred to as a scoping exercise. I understood from that term, "a scoping exercise", that its purpose was to get a judge in to have a preliminary review of the circumstances of the case in order that a very quick and short report could be prepared to outline what would be the parameters of the inquiry, what areas need to be looked at and what areas do not need to be looked at. We are aware of scoping inquiries in this House and in fact we are doing one at present in respect of sexual abuse in certain schools. We have had scoping inquiries in the past. They are a preliminary process to identify and help the subsequent investigator in terms of looking at what should be looked at. It was very surprising that the scoping inquiry went on for as long as it did. When one looks at the report produced, it is certainly much more lengthy than any other scoping inquiry I am aware of.
More importantly than that, the scoping exercise goes beyond the definition of what it was. It is not simply a scoping exercise because clearly, as others have identified, there are findings of fact within the report. I think it is very dangerous for there to be findings of fact in a report when those findings of fact are not based on evidence that has been given before the person who is conducting the inquiry. If we look at the example that was mentioned earlier in respect of the lights on the bicycle, the way that issue should be determined is that an individual should be called to give evidence as to what they saw at the scene of the accident, the scene of the death of Shane, after it occurred. That would require the Garda members who came upon the scene to give evidence to the judge or whoever is adjudicating the issue and then for others to be able to test that evidence. Instead, we have a finding of fact in respect of it.
One of the factors that struck me as one of the strongest points that had been made in respect of the death of Shane O'Farrell and why it required investigation, is that there had been a hearing before Judge O'Hagan in the Circuit Court on 11 January 2011. At that hearing the judge said that if the individual - who we know was subsequently driving the car that knocked Shane down - was involved in the commission of another criminal offence, he would be sentenced to prison. Judge Haughton seeks to deal with this at page 402 of his report and the point he mentioned in his report is to ask who would know whether he would have been put in prison by Judge O'Hagan or whether he should have been put in prison. With the greatest of respect, I do not think that is the point. The point is that the Circuit Court judge who subsequently dealt with this matter in June 2011, when he was convicted of the offence of possession of heroin, should have been informed about the fact it had to go back before Judge O'Hagan. There was a breakdown in the criminal process as to why that issue did not go back before the judge. We also need to recognise that as a House, we need to take steps to amend the law in respect of dangerous driving causing death and careless driving causing death, under the former section 53. At present, if someone is acquitted on that, he or she cannot convicted of the other under section 52. That is something this House can do. I will now hand over to Deputy Lawless.
I too welcome the O'Farrell family to the Chamber and sympathise with them on the loss of their son. I had the pleasure of meeting Ms Lucia O'Farrell recently in Leinster House 2000 and we had a conversation about the case. It was all too brief, unfortunately, but I am mindful of it. I also want to recognise the work of my colleague, Deputy McGuinness, in continuing to highlight this over several years. I remember that debate in 2018 and 2019 well, when these Houses voted, as has been referenced already. Both Houses voted to form a public inquiry into this matter.
The first thing I will say is that as we are the arm of the State tasked by the people - we are the parliamentary assembly, the Oireachtas - I am at a loss to understand why, if we have made a decision in both Houses that is being second-guessed by a scoping inquiry? Why did that go off to somewhere else to see if it can happen? When I was on the county council, it was of great frustration to many members that a motion on a minor matter would be second-guessed and overruled by an official or a civil servant at some stage. They would say that we could not have that street light there or that road repair there because an engineer deems otherwise, even though it might have been voted through by the chamber. That was at a very local micro level and perhaps understandable, although dubious from a democratic perspective. However, this is a really major important report about how we manage the criminal justice system, voted through by two Houses of the Oireachtas. Why does it go off through another report to be scoped, only to come back with the view that no public inquiry is needed, when the Chambers that are elected to decide these things voted for it? I really struggle to understand that. I think there is a democratic deficit in that point.
In terms of the detail of what happened, there seemed to be a catalogue of errors both in the reports and in what happened and how the individual was allowed to remain on bail. It is a continual frustration of the public and many in these Houses that people can become repeat offenders and can continue to commit other crimes while on bail. That revolving door system is often criticised, often rightly. Occasionally there can be good reason for it but with 42 or 44 offences, it seems extraordinary that a person was allowed to go on. Legitimate questions have been asked by people in this Chamber and by the family and others.
Was he a confidential informant? Were there other reasons? Was discretion correctly applied in terms of drugs charges? The family deserve to know the answer to those questions and have those traversed in a public open forum, if necessary, of an adversarial nature, where they can be cross-examined and examined from both sides and where people have a right of audience, a right to say and a right of rebuttal. That is how we get to the truth. The engine for the truth is cross-examination. That is what a public inquiry would do.
On the administrative piece, I understand that there was probably a catalogue of administrative errors. One of the more serious errors was that a court report or court order was incorrectly filed or was mislaid or certainly did not carry the ramifications that it should have done in terms of another offence, and how that carried across and how that was implemented or otherwise. One could ask how can that happen but I actually have a fairly good idea how it could have happened, not necessarily in this particular case but from seeing many cases across both local district and circuit courts across a number of years. The registrars and the system are overworked and overwhelmed. I am Chair of the Committee on Justice and many of my colleagues are present in the Chamber. We have repeatedly stated that judicial resourcing must be increased, not only the judges which is sometimes a misnomer but the courts system, including registrars, support staff, people who are there to move the orders and the administrative back-up, to ensure that these kinds of errors do not get made because they have really serious ramifications. This error could have resulted in an unnecessary and avoidable death. That is about as serious as it can get. That is an argument for investment in judicial resources. The State is doing that now but it is taking a while to get there. It has been a consistent theme of the Committee on Justice that we need investment in the courts system, judicial resources and all the support services and perhaps we will avoid this happen again, which must be the foremost goal of all who speak on this.
I want to start by welcoming the family of Shane O'Farrell here today. I offer my deepest sympathies to the family, who have gone through what is a tragic situation and a tragic story. The tragic story of Shane O'Farrell's untimely death in a hit-and-run in 2011 serves as a powerful example of a family's unwavering pursuit of justice. Shane's life was cut short by Zigimantas Gridziuska, a man with a troubling criminal history. The O'Farrell family, devastated by their loss, embarked on an eight-year journey to uncover the truth suspecting errors and cover-ups in the investigation. The independent reviews raised concerns about previous inquiries, leading to a call for a full public inquiry in 2018. The family sought to expand the inquiry scope, including Gridziuska's past crimes and the inquest handling. The process was frustrating, as Judge Gerard Haughton initially proposed broad terms but later narrowed them, leaving the family the inquiry was intentionally restricted. The scoping exercise report's conclusions were questioned for adopting a victim-blaming narrative and claiming no further inquiry was needed. The central question remains, why was Gridziuska not behind bars? This raises concerns about potential connections as a Garda informer. The Minister's assertion that no further inquiry is needed intensifies the family's resolve for justice. While we acknowledge improvements in the justice system as per Judge Haughton's recommendations, the O'Farrell family continues their quest citing inaccuracies and incompleteness in the report highlighting systematic issues in the Irish justice system.
Shane O'Farrell's story and his family's pursuit of justice reminds us of the need for accountability, transparency and reform in our justice system. It calls for legal reforms to prevent such journeys for justice in the future. As a society, we must support their call for change, stand in solidarity and address systematic issues to ensure justice prevails, not only for Shane's family but for all seeking fairness and truth with our legal system. I, like others here today, call for a public inquiry.
I, too, welcome Lucia and Jim and their daughters, and, indeed, brothers, and their little grandchild today. They should not have to be here. What kind of a cabal of a country are we running? That is all I can call it. I have been in this House for 16 years and I have seen a litany of injustices and cover-ups, from Whiddy Island, ever before I came in here, to the Fr. Niall Molloy killing in Offaly. We had two young men killed off Helvick Head, 11 years ago now, and the cover-ups there by the Marine Casualty Investigation Board. We have the Omagh bombings and, God knows, the Dublin and Monaghan bombings. All covered up, none investigated. What kind of a system? Deputy McEntee is there now, sitting pretty as Minister, and she is happy to come in here, I might add, on her own - there is not a Fine Gael backbencher present - to allow this stinking cover-up rotten system that we have that denies justice to these good people. It is a shame and a disgrace that any family should have to go through this and to investigate this themselves because it was not investigated.
We decided, as Deputy McGuinness said, to initiate a public inquiry but the system covered it up again and set it up as a scoping inquiry. They got a retired member of the Judiciary. Is it any wonder maybe the Judicial Appointments Commission Bill 2022 has been referred to the Council of State and now to the Supreme Court? Mind the house at all cost. Cover up everything. Do not allow anything. People are out there crying for justice. People have been dragged out of their homes by thugs from other jurisdictions, and gardaí standing watching, at the behest of the banks. This is a sick disgusting State that we have now today.
These people go on for that length of time and all the judge could find is whether he had a light on his bike. It is like something that went on with the Peep-of-Day Boys or when the Garda pulled in people for not having lights on their bikes and donkeys and carts. In the name of God, such humiliation to put a family through when all they want is justice.
A man, who had a career of up to 40 previous convictions and was wanted in three jurisdictions, was driving around and stopped at a checkpoint a hour before it happened. He went off, did not stop at the scene, hid the car at a friend's house and then he got the option to leave. We do not know now whether he is back in the country or not. That is the kind of Republic that we have, that the men of 1916 and 1921 and 1923 fought for. It is a shame and the Minister should be ashamed of her Department of Justice.
I have raised what is going on in the Prison Service with the Minister. I refer to the humiliation and degrading of prison officers. A dirty cabal again, and what is going on is disgusting .
Fr. Niall Molloy is in his grave all those years and no investigation and no justice, and here today Shane O'Farrell. I am sorry for raising my voice but I am so angry to think that we have a system, we have the name of democracy in this country but we have no accountability. There are juntas in different countries that are more democratic than us and more fair than us. It is sad to have to say that, 16 and a half years since I came into this House, and I was on the local authority before that.
It is such a rotten system. Cover-up is the name of the game. Preserve, and preserve the system. The system has failed so many people and will fail so many more.
The Omagh bomb was the same, where that bomb was transported from Tipperary right up to Omagh. It should have been stopped, but no. He was working for MI5, and a cover-up. It is disgusting.
I thank the Leas-Cheann Comhairle for the opportunity to contribute to these statements on the final report on the independent scoping exercise into the circumstances surrounding the death of Shane O'Farrell. I welcome his family here today as well to listen to this debate.
It is absolutely devastating that the O'Farrell family has been forced to continue this fight against the State to get answers they need over the past 12 years since Shane's untimely death in 2011. Unfortunately, their fight will have to continue after this scoping report. I again express my condolences and anger that they are continuously forced into this position. It is unacceptable that they have to do this and that despite being raised so many times in this House, we still have not received the answers they are so desperately looking for. There are still many serious issues here that remain unaddressed. All the O'Farrell family are looking for is answers but it seems their questions are exposing some very troubling truths that the State would rather not bring attention to.
The scoping exercise report was extremely disappointing for those who have waited so long to see it published. It is clear that there are very big unexplained holes in the report. The scoping exercise has failed to uncover thorough or factual answers to vital questions relating to Shane's death and there are serious issues regarding breaches of bail in this case as well. Shane, his family and public deserve the truth and this report only continues to keep the truth from us.
The Minister stated in her opening statement that:
The judge also finds that there are no circumstances in the context of granting, objecting to or revoking bail, or the monitoring of compliance with the conditions of bail, that warrant further inquiry. He makes a similar finding about the systems and procedures for the sharing of information between the Garda, the Courts Service and other relevant State bodies operating at the time of Shane O'Farrell's death.
Everything is rosy in the garden. What are we even talking about then so?
It is clear that the reviews by GSOC, the independent review mechanism and the Courts Service into the incident did not go far enough and present more questions than answers. The section 103 GSOC report is completely unsatisfactory and contains many mistakes, inaccuracies and omissions. The fact that this has not been acted upon is extremely concerning and raises many serious questions regarding GSOC reporting. We have not been allowed access to the section 101 GSOC report upon which the investigation was based. Despite Judge Haughton emphasising that it is important not to judge the GSOC investigation on the basis of the section 101 report alone, he failed to request the section 101 report.
In respect of the Courts Service, this case highlights some very concerning failures in its practices and procedures.
Despite the Courts Service recognising this, it does not address the fact that decisions were made in part on the basis of incorrect information on the official record regarding convictions and sentences. The scoping exercise report does not explain why Zigimantas Gridziuska was at liberty having committed in excess of 30 offences while on bail from various District and Circuit Courts for almost two years before the incident in 2011. There are questions as to whether An Garda Síochána was using him as an informer. That might have been the case. It certainly seems to me that might be a better outcome as far as the State is concerned.
At the time of the incident, Zigimantas Gridziuska was on bail and in breach of bail conditions from Virginia District Court, County Cavan, Monaghan Circuit Court, Carrickmacross District Court and was on a suspended sentence and bond to keep the peace in Ardee District Court, County Louth and in Newry, Northern Ireland. He had received two prison sentences which were never served. In the first instance, the Courts Service admitted error and in the second, gardaí wrote the incorrect numbers on a statement and evidence bags. This is not addressed in the scoping exercise report. This raises crucial questions on various aspects of the criminal justice system including the functioning of bail and the potential use of Garda informers.
I have continuously raised my concerns about the justice system in this country. It is clear that the justice system is in urgent need of reform. The Department of Justice is at the root of many of the problems in this State. We have had problems with An Garda Síochána, the Courts Service and Prison Service. This is an example of serious neglect.
I am reminded of a comment I heard on the McBrearty case, another famous recent case, namely that the purpose of the State is to make sure the questions about McBrearty stay in Donegal. This is a perfect example: that the State has to make sure that the questions about the treatment of the O’Farrell family stay in Monaghan because we do not want to admit that it could be going on right across the country. I wonder what the bail system is like in Donegal, Tipperary, Cork or Kerry because if it is anything like the bail system in Monaghan, we are being failed and let down every day in this State. It is incumbent on the Minister to address this and to hold a public inquiry to ensure that this does not stay in Monaghan but that it goes across the whole country and we see changes coming from it.
I am sure the Minister will agree that any parent’s greatest fear is their child will go out some day and not come home. For Lucia and Jim O’Farrell, this dreadful fear became their reality on the fateful day Shane was killed. I want to sincerely acknowledge Shane’s family here in the Gallery. Incredibly, the scoping exercise sought to blame Shane for his own death and wipes the hands of An Garda Síochána, the courts and even the man who killed him of any wrong doing. That is unacceptable. That was not the point of this exercise. Serious questions must be asked of the direct role played by the Department of Justice in this supposedly independent process. We will also agree that nobody should be above the law, not the Minister, nor me, nor a garda, nor a judge nor an informer. The family and the State require answers to serious questions. It is a matter of public interest. The only way we will have the truth on this conspiracy to protect an individual who was given bail on 37 separate occasions before he killed this young man is a full public independent inquiry. A litany of answers is needed by this family to the questions that keep them awake at night. But it is not just for this family but for the administration of justice in our State, confidence in our Judiciary and confidence in An Garda Síochána. This tragic loss of life should never have happened. It will forever leave a gap in this family that no one can fill and no one else can feel. It will go some way to attempt to give the answers and justice the O’Farrell family needs because at this point nothing else will do.
Can we also agree that it is such a pity that this family has to retraumatise itself each and every time it has to speak out? Please do not let them leave here today with just a failed scoping exercise. Please respond to the circumstances that they should never have faced and attempt to undo the wrong by at least committing to a full, public, independent inquiry. The responsibility for this lies in the Government’s hands.
I thank all Deputies for their contributions this evening and I thank the O’Farrell family for being here throughout this. I do not think any of us, myself included, who have met either Lucia or Jim, Shane’s sisters or the wider family who could not have been affected by those meetings. Like everyone here, I have witnessed the sheer love, but above all, determination by the family to make sure all the facts surrounding Shane’s death are laid bare and are clear and also to ensure that no family goes through what they have gone through and what they are going through. I know that is what Shane’s family wants out of all of this.
At no point have I as Minister in the last number of years, or this Government, ruled out a scoping or a public inquiry following on from this. The terms of reference were very clear that if this was the route we were to go down, that Judge Haughton could outline the terms of that scoping inquiry and at no stage have we ruled that out. But I have a report before me. Whether it is 416 pages, more or less, it is an extensive report. It is comprehensive and it sets out all the issues within the terms of reference in some detail. The terms of reference were finalised on the advice of the Attorney General and early on, the judge made it clear that he would not restrict or limit any parties in their submissions to him in terms of the nature and extent of the documentation which could be furnished to him in the context of the scoping exercise. He carried out a very thorough review of all the relevant information and material and has produced what I and the Government believe is a detailed final report, having fully engaged with each and every issue raised by or on behalf of the family and many others who have engaged in this overall scoping inquiry.
The judge finds that there are no circumstances - Deputies have raised this throughout this debate this evening - that where there are faults or issues that need to be addressed that we as a Parliament need to be able to respond. The judge says very clearly in the context of granting, objecting and revoking of bail or the monitoring of compliance with conditions of bail, none warrants further inquiry that have not already been laid bare either by this inquiry or many other inquiries that have taken place. He makes a similar finding about the systems, the procedures for the sharing of information between An Garda Síochána, the Courts Service and other relevant State bodies operating at the time of Shane O’Farrell’s death. He does make several recommendations. I note that many Deputies have very clearly said that where mistakes were made, where procedures were not in place and where we need to strengthen our law that too must be the outcome, not just of today but of the many, many years of campaigning and work by Lucia, Jim and all the family. In that regard, several recommendations have been made around bail, suspended sentences, legislation and amendments to the Road Traffic Act. I mentioned that only today agreement was reached by the Government to progress recommendations on careless driving in the forthcoming road traffic Bill and also in relation to notices of appeals administered by the Courts Service. Today was the final installation of a significant increase in our Judiciary with 24 additional judges appointed to ensure that we have a Judiciary that is working efficiently and effectively. That will be supported by an increase in staffing, which was provided for in this year’s budget.
As I outlined, before me is a report which has been considered by the Government and the Attorney General whose advice was sought prior to its publication. Having considered that final report, the Government does not dispute the main conclusion reached by Judge Haughton that no further inquiry is necessary. I fully appreciate this is not what the family wants to hear from me this evening. I do fully appreciate that. However, we have to make a decision here. The Government has made this decision based on the facts laid out in the report. How do we make sure all the information is available? We have heard that so much of the information has already been produced in this report following on from a series of investigations whether through GSOC, the courts or other investigations that have taken place. Recommendations have been made to ensure this does not happen again and that, insofar as possible, we as legislators do whatever we possibly can to make sure that no family goes through what the O'Farrell family is going through.
I committed to the family that I will follow up with An Garda Síochána on the whereabouts of this particular individual and that, if the whereabouts of this person become known, the Department will review the position regarding a further exclusion order being made. I thank Deputies for their contributions, and acknowledge and thank the O'Farrell family for being here too.
May I ask for a point of information?
Briefly.
Much of this debate centred around a previous decision of both Houses of the Oireachtas. Tonight, we had a debate with 22 speakers, 21 of whom reiterated the need for the implementation of that report and one, being the Minister, said that she refuses to do that. What options are open to the House in the case where a clear decision of the House is completely disregarded by the Government and the Minister has come before us to tell us that she will not implement it?
A motion of the House is not legally binding on the Government or on any Government. Does the Minister make any comment in respect of that?
The decision was taken by the Government a number of years ago to conduct the scoping exercise. It was very clearly outlined in the terms of reference that, if a public inquiry was deemed necessary following this scoping exercise, that would be considered by Government. I have never, nor has the Government, throughout this scoping exercise said that we would not accept a public inquiry if that was recommended. We have a report that clearly outlines the reasons a public inquiry should not take place. This has been brought this to the Cabinet and a decision has been taken in that regard.
Is it possible to table the motion passed on that night in 2018 again before this Oireachtas?
I would have to take advice on that but I assume Members can table any motion they wish before the Oireachtas in Private Members' time or with Government approval if they get Government time. It is entirely a matter for the Members. I cannot control that; the Minister does not control that. That concludes statements on the final report of the independent scoping exercise into the circumstances surrounding the death of Shane O'Farrell. May he rest in peace.