Vol. 1064 No. 5
114. Deputy Matt Carthy asked the Minister for Justice if he will establish a public inquiry into the death of a person (details supplied), as mandated by the Dáil on two separate occasions; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [12757/25]
This is my first opportunity to present oral questions to the Minister for Justice. I wanted my first question to be in respect of the case of Shane O'Farrell, with which the Minister is very familiar. The Minister moved a motion on the case previously, which was adopted by the House, calling for the establishment of a public inquiry into the circumstances of the death of Shane and the actions of State agencies in respect of it. Will the Minister now establish that inquiry?
I thank Deputy Carthy for tabling this question. I know how much pain the O’Farrell family have gone through since August 2011. Neither I, Deputy Carthy nor anyone else in the House can alleviate that pain, but what we can try to do is ensure that answers are provided to the O'Farrell family in respect of the issues of concern from that terrible evening.
It is important to emphasise that primary responsibility for Shane’s death rests with Zigimantas Gridziuska, the man who drove the car that struck Shane from behind, who failed to stop and remain at the scene and who subsequently that evening hid his car away from his home. As Deputy Carthy will be aware, he was prosecuted in February 2013 for dangerous driving causing death. He was acquitted. I know that is not the justice outcome that the O'Farrell family wanted but it is the consequence that we have to deal with and respond to. There were, however, issues of concern that I highlighted previously, as did Deputy Carthy. These were that the driver was on bail at the time, gardaí stopped his car one hour before the collision and he had previous convictions that should have triggered his reappearance before the courts. Those were the reasons I tabled that motion in June 2018. The motion was effective because it resulted in the Government changing its approach to the Shane O'Farrell matter and establishing a scoping inquiry. That inquiry took longer than most scoping inquiries and came back with a very lengthy report of 415 pages. This was much longer than I or anyone else expected. I cannot ignore the scoping report, but I will refer the recommendations contained within it to the justice committee, once that committee is up and running. I will keep my mind open in respect of the matter and the question the Deputy asked, but I cannot give him a definitive answer now.
I agree entirely with the Minister that one person alone is responsible for the death of Shane O'Farrell, that being, Zigimantas Gridziuska. However, at the heart of this case is the indisputable fact that Gridziuska should have been imprisoned at the time of Shane's killing. He was in breach of multiple bail conditions set by multiple courts. He had been stopped on several occasions by gardaí when there was an arrestable offence clearly taking place, including just a short time before Shane's death. The Minister has indicated that the O'Farrell family want answers. It is in the public interest that we get to the heart of why this individual was not imprisoned at the time. How do we get those answers for the O'Farrells? It is my belief that the only way those answers will be got is through an independent public inquiry. Does the Minister believe that there is scope or capacity within the justice committee to actually get those answers? I would contend strongly that there is not. If the Minister shares this view, then he should do the honourable thing and not delay this process any longer and establish the public inquiry that is required.
The Deputy has highlighted the issues of concern and he has correctly pointed out that not just the O'Farrell family, but the public is entitled to answers on these. The Deputy mentioned that the driver was on bail on charges of theft and possession of stolen property at the time of the collision. The Deputy also mentioned that Gridziuska's convictions for those theft offences in May 2011 should have triggered his reappearance before the courts. I cannot ignore the fact that, in the scoping exercise report, those issues were dealt with. I fully agree with the Deputy that I do not expect the justice committee to start conducting inquisitorial hearings. It cannot do so. I was on the justice committee as a member and as Chairman. However, what the justice committee can do when I send it the report is to look at the recommendations that are contained within. The Deputy and many others may not like the content of the replies provided in the scoping report, but they have to be considered. I come back to the point that I cannot ignore a report of 415 pages, but we need to have further engagement on it. The recommendations need to be assessed by the justice committee. I will keep an open mind on the Deputy's principal question.
There are two distinct elements here. One is the recommendations of the scoping exercise report. I agree that we should look at all of those and perhaps there is a role for the justice committee in deliberating on whether those are achievable. Every recommendation ultimately comes down to whether the Minister or another Minister decides to accept them. One of the recommendations is that there is no scope for a public inquiry. I fundamentally disagree with that recommendation. Just like any recommendation in any report, it can be discounted by the Minister if there is a just reason to do so. In my view, there is very just reason to ignore that recommendation and to pursue the democratic decision of the Dáil and establish the inquiry.
If the Minister decides to proceed with what I consider to be another stumbling block by reverting this issue to the justice committee, will he instruct his Department and An Garda Síochána to provide the justice committee with any documentation it seeks as part of its work in following up on any examination of this case and the report?
I do not want to interfere with what the justice committee wants to do, but if a request comes from it to my Department, I will ensure that careful consideration is given to it.
I have to make a broader point on scoping inquiries and reports. Generally, when there is a proposal in the House to establish a commission of investigation or a tribunal of inquiry, a scoping report is done in advance. We did it with the allegations of sexual abuse in schools, where Mary O'Toole SC prepared the scoping inquiry report. It took about three or four months and comprised around 40 pages. She said that there needed to be an investigation into those matters because she was not able to establish the detail of it. However, the scoping report we are discussing is different and I cannot ignore the fact that it says that there should be no further inquiry. I fully understand and appreciate the Deputy's political objective but he has to understand that other people could quite legitimately say to me that I was told not to set up a further inquiry.
I am keeping the matter open, but I cannot ignore the content of the scoping report.
115. Deputy Alan Kelly asked the Minister for Justice if he has any concerns about the fact that the latest intake of trainee gardaí are not fully vetted. [12760/25]
As the Minister is aware, the Garda Commissioner informed his Department last November that full vetting would no longer take place prior to trainees entering the college at Templemore. This sent shock waves across many organisations, including the GRA and other representative bodies, because the Garda do the vetting. If gardaí will not be fully vetted before they enter Templemore, how can standards be maintained?
I thank the Deputy for his question and for his interest in this important area. The question of Garda vetting of individuals who go on to become members of An Garda Síochána is an important issue. It is not like ordinary vetting where somebody wants to become a football coach or is involved with children because it is much more thorough. I am informed by the Commissioner that vetting of candidates is conducted by the Garda National Vetting Bureau in a centralised unit and that it is the most stringent vetting in respect of any role in the State.
The Deputy is correct to state that there has been a change in how the vetting has occurred, but it is not correct to state that people enter Templemore unvetted. I have been informed that there are three stages to the vetting process. Before somebody enters Templemore, stage 1 of the vetting has been completed. There are then stages 2 and 3, which are now being done during the course of the individual's presence within Templemore. The reason we did that is we wanted to speed up the process of recruiting members to An Garda Síochána. I am frequently asked questions about this and, before I was a Minister, I said that we needed to do more to speed up the process of recruitment.
One of the mechanisms by which recruitment was being slowed down was that the vetting process was taking too long. Instead, what will happen is people will be vetted at stage 1, they will go into Templemore, and stages 2 and 3 will be completed while they are at Templemore. The effect of that has been that, on 10 March, 201 trainee gardaí started in Templemore. When they are attested in December this year and when they are then out on the streets, they will have been vetted to the exact same extent as any member of An Garda Síochána who was vetted under the old system. This will not result in a situation where gardaí are patrolling the streets as attested members who have not been thoroughly vetted.
I know the Deputy's concern but it is not correct - this is my respectful response - to say that people are entering unvetted. They are vetted. It is just that the process of vetting is not completed until they are fully attested.
This is Comical Ali stuff. The Garda Síochána press office has stated: "... the highest standards for all ... Gardaí will be maintained. Vetting standards for Garda trainees remain the same." They do not remain the same. They are different. Similar to the housing statistics, this was done as a political ploy in order to ensure numbers got bumped up and trainees were taken in last December, which I pointed out last year. It is not the same standard. The Minister needs to guarantee on the floor of the House that people are not currently training in Templemore who should not be. Gardaí and their representative bodies, who are very concerned about standards not being maintained, have come to me from across the country on this.
We also have to think about the people who are training and working with trainees at Templemore. The people who enter Templemore need to be vetted to the same standard as they always have been. At the end of the day, the Garda does the vetting. If it cannot maintain those standards, what hope have we regarding everyone else? I have asked this question of every Department and agency throughout the country. Not one has come back to me and said that it is changing its vetting standards, but An Garda Síochána can? The public is not buying this. People are worried about it.
The objective is to ensure that, once people become attested members of An Garda Síochána, they will have been fully vetted. That will continue the way it did previously.
We need to look at the three stages of it. The first stage, which is done before anyone enters Templemore, requires all candidates on their applications to become trainees to complete what is known as a form B. This document is very extensive and involves requesting detailed personal information from candidates, such as details on any time they lived abroad and information on all extended family members, including family who live abroad and may have little or no interaction with the candidate. These checks can take the timelines for completion outside the control of both the candidate and the vetting bureau. That is the first stage in respect of vetting.
The second and third stages are done while the candidate is in Templemore. The second stage involves security checks and local vetting, which involves a short interview conducted by a sergeant or someone of higher rank in the candidate's local station. Stage 3 involves the Garda National Vetting Bureau making a final decision under the authority of the Commissioner. Once an attested garda goes out on the street, he or she will have been vetted to the same extent as previously.
What the Minister said is simply not factually correct. Garda trainees are going into Templemore who have not been vetted to the standard required. That is the bottom line. This was done last November.
The Minister is also failing to acknowledge the fact that unattested trainees are often training under supervision but are not fully vetted. The Minister knows that as part of their course they are out during certain phases and are not fully vetted. Trainee gardaí who are not fully vetted are out on patrol throughout the country. That is a fact. The Minister cannot deny that in the House. Gardaí of various ranks all over the country are disgusted at this and believe it is totally wrong.
The Department also fails to acknowledge this. Trainee gardaí are coming in who are not fully vetted and, in the end, they are told they cannot become gardaí. How much is that costing the State? The Department cannot answer that question, which I have asked. It is not able to answer how much it costs to train a garda in this country. If that is all accumulated, it is obviously a loss to the taxpayer. These people have access to a lot of information, training, uniforms, guns and arms. Many of them are very fine people, and I represent the constituency that includes Templemore, but they need to be fully vetted. If people need be fully vetted for Tusla, the HEA, education and everything in healthcare, they surely, in the name of God, need to be fully vetted for An Garda Síochána before they enter Templemore.
They will be fully vetted by the time they are gardaí.
Not when they enter.
What we are talking about, so people are aware-----
They can be on the streets unvetted.
-----is that part of the vetting process happens during the training process. The reason that is done is we are trying to increase the numbers going into An Garda Síochána.
So, standards drop.
We have a recruitment crisis.
Standards drop.
They do not drop.
They do.
What the public is concerned about is the quality-----
Give a guarantee.
Will the Deputy let me answer the question? What the public is concerned about is the quality of the garda on the street. Fortunately, the quality of the gardaí on the street in this country is excellent. They are fully vetted, more than any other official in the public service. They are vetted thoroughly. What is happening is we are changing the sequencing of the process. The reason we are doing that is to try to speed it up. Part of the problem is the fact that many people have spent time abroad. They have been in Australia and other parts of the world. Garda management have to find out about them when they have been away for two or three years. That takes time.
Trainee-----
Let me finish the answer. Rather than saying to those individuals that they cannot start at Templemore until we have thoroughly got information about them, we are letting them start and then getting the information. We are getting fully vetted gardaí at the end of the process.
They are on the streets unvetted.
116. Deputy Matt Carthy asked the Minister for Justice the actions he will take to address the fact that the suspects for 40,348 crimes carried out in 2024 were on bail; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [12758/25]
Many people were shocked - I certainly was - at the reply I received from the Minister that revealed that known suspects in 40,348 crimes carried out in 2024 were on bail. I submitted the question on the back of a number of high-profile instances where habitual offenders, including people who had repeatedly breached bail conditions, were subsequently convicted of very serious crimes. Will the Minister outline what actions he will take to address this very serious issue?
I thank the Deputy for his question. It is important that policymakers, including Ministers, keep a close watch on the law in respect of bail. I note the answer the Deputy got, which stated that 40,348 crimes were carried out in 2024 while persons were on bail. Like him, I thought that was extremely high. I then asked for a breakdown of a description of the nature of the crimes. Of the crimes committed while people were on bail, 20% were in respect of theft from shops. That is approximately 8,000 crimes. Five thousand were in respect of breach of bail.
Public order offences were 13.7% or approximately 5,000. There were 2,500 drunkenness offences and the simple possession of drugs was in the region of 6% or approximately 2,000 offences. As many of these offences are regarded as summary offences, they would not in the ordinary course of events result in individuals being remanded in custody when people are brought before the court. That is the truth of the matter. When we look at the nature of the offences, we see that many of them are to be prosecuted in the District Court. If people are brought before the District Court on a charge of theft, they obviously have to be remanded for the hearing, but they are not remanded in custody. The Deputy may disagree with that, but the reason they are not remanded in custody is that we already have a problem in our prisons and we would have another 10,000 people if we were going to remand in custody all the individuals charged with offences committed in 2024 that were minor offences.
I am fully aware of the significance of the Bail Act. In 1997, people said they wanted the courts to refuse bail in circumstances where they thought there was a likelihood that a serious offence would be committed. When it comes to people being charged with serious offences, especially violent offences, the presumption should be that bail would not be granted.
To be clear, no one is suggesting that every bail application end with a remand order.
Is the Minister satisfied with the extent to which adherence with bail conditions is monitored and enforced? I received another reply to a parliamentary question from the Minister on 25 February that revealed that, although people were suspected of committing more than 40,000 crimes in 2024 while on bail, there were only 4,146 arrests that year where there was reasonable cause to suspect the person was in breach of a bail condition. Does the Minister agree that the discrepancy between the number of crimes being committed while suspects are on bail and the number of arrests for breaches of bail conditions suggests there is a significant problem with monitoring bail conditions and holding those on bail to account for breaches of those bail conditions?
Serious offences committed while people are on bail should trigger my interest and that of other policymakers. The offences I outlined, including theft from shops, public order offences and drunkenness offences, are the offences committed by people on bail. With the greatest of respect to the Deputy, I do not think they are the issues he is concerned about. He is more concerned about serious offences.
The percentage of individuals who are now in custody and are not on bail has increased significantly in recent years. For instance, it is notable that of the 5,155 people who were in custody on 3 March, 20% were on remand. That is significantly more than in previous years. Since March 2015, there has been a significant increase in the number of people in custody. In the same period, the number of people on remand has increased by 112%, which reflects the approach of the courts in refusing bail where they deem it appropriate to do so. Courts are more in tune with the fact that they should not be granting bail in circumstances where they think it not appropriate. That is reflected in the figures.
I will go back to the Minister's original response where he repeated figures included in the initial reply to the parliamentary question in respect of the most common offence types carried out by offenders who were on bail. He mentioned public order, drunkenness, theft from shops, possession of drugs for personal use and criminal damage, which accounted for 59%. Will the Minister outline to the Dáil the detail of the categories that make up the other 41% of crimes for which no figures were given in that reply?
The number of crimes committed while suspects were on bail went up from 26,000 in 2016 to 40,000 in 2024. My difficulty with the Minister's answer regarding the progress that has been made through the courts in recent times is that it suggests that he is not committing to reviewing the operation of the bail laws, including changes to them that might be necessary.
Does the Minister agree that a real problem results from the fact that we simply do not have enough gardaí in our communities to be able to monitor all these things, particularly to monitor those who have been released on bail?
I do not have the information in respect of the Deputy's question on the other 41% and I apologise for that. If the Deputy asks another parliamentary question, that information may or may not be available. I am not sure at present.
I note what the Deputy stated about the increase in figures between 2016 and 2024. Our population has increased so significantly during that period that it is not surprising there has been an increase.
On reviewing the operation of bail and bail laws, I want to prioritise the introduction of electronic monitoring, which would make matters considerably easier when it comes to remanding people on bail as opposed to in custody. We would be able to monitor where they were. Bail terms and conditions are imposed and we would be able to ensure they are being complied with.
Regarding gardaí not being able to monitor breaches of bail conditions, if the Deputy looks at the statistics I gave him, he will see that breach of bail accounted for 13.8% of the 40,000 offences committed by people on bail. That indicates that the Garda is monitoring bail compliance.
117. Deputy Brian Stanley asked the Minister for Justice the progress regarding the term of review on the use of concurrent and consecutive sentencing guidelines for judges; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [12368/25]
My question is about the progress being made on the review of concurrent and consecutive sentencing. I have discussed the need for movement on this with the Minister outside the Dáil Chamber previously. It is not about locking people up and throwing away the key, but we need some common sense in the sentencing guidelines.
The Deputy will be aware that sentencing is a complex matter, but people want to see some consistency in sentencing. I want to see that as well. The mechanism by which we are seeking to achieve this was set out in the Judicial Council Act 2019, under which there is a procedure for the Judiciary to set out sentencing guidelines. I look forward to receiving those sentencing guidelines from the Judiciary, as they will improve consistency throughout the course of imposing sentences.
We also need to be aware that concurrent and consecutive sentences are options available to judges. Under our law, consecutive sentences can be imposed by the courts. In fact, the Oireachtas has mandated that, in certain circumstances, there should be consecutive sentences. For instance, in reference to Deputy Carthy's question earlier, if people commit a serious offence while on bail, the law dictates that they receive a consecutive sentence. That is provided for in the Criminal Justice Acts. It is also the case that, if people commit an offence while serving a sentence for another offence, for example, if they are out on temporary release, that should result in a consecutive sentence as well.
I appreciate the concern Deputies and victims and their families have when they see a concurrent sentence being imposed in respect of different offences. The message that goes out is that there was no real sentence for the offence committed against the victim because the person was already serving a sentence in any event. That is not what the law seeks to achieve. Judges sometimes look at the issues in terms of the totality of what occurred. In circumstances where there is one offence and a series of convictions in respect of it, concurrent sentences are probably appropriate. However, where the offences are separate, it is my view that consecutive offences are appropriate.
I thank the Minister for his reply. He outlined that there is provision in law for consecutive sentencing and that he is of the opinion that should happen for serious offences. However, in the recent case of Joe Drennan - a young man from near Mountrath in County Laois, where I come from, who was mowed down at a bus stop coming home from work - the driver of the car had 46 previous convictions. He fled the scene. He received a concurrent sentence, which means that he will not serve one additional hour in prison for the killing of the young man. That is shocking. Young Joe Drennan lost his life. His family lost him. There has been a strong campaign in the county to have this reversed. I welcome that the DPP is now appealing the decision.
However, while the Minister says the provision is there in law, it is not being taken on board in some of the courts. In a case like this where a person is up on serious charges, including shooting up a house, it is clear there should be concurrent sentencing and there needs to be clear guidelines on it.
I am aware of the tragic case of Joe Drennan. I am not going to talk about it, as I am sure the Deputy can appreciate. The matter is being appealed by the DPP to the Court of Appeal and it would be inappropriate for me to say anything in respect of it.
I will speak in general terms about where multiple offences have been committed. Sentences imposed in response to multiple offences can be imposed concurrently, consecutively or a combination of both. Offences committed while on bail, in custody or while a suspended sentence is in place attract consecutive sentences. That is provided for expressly in legislation. Section 11 of the Criminal Justice Act 1984 states, as I said previously, that if a person commits an offence while on bail, the sentence should run consecutively. There is also section 13 of the Criminal Law Act 1976, which states that if a person commits an offence while serving a sentence, such as a suspended sentence, the sentence should run consecutively. More recently, the Criminal Justice (Burglary of Dwellings) Act 2015 provides for consecutive sentences in relation to certain burglary offences. The law provides for it, therefore, but I appreciate and understand the Deputy's concern.
I thank the Minister for his reply. When we discuss this previously, he indicated that a review was under way or getting under way. While I accept that it is there in law and welcome the clarification regarding the 1984 Act, the Minister, who was until recently a practising barrister, will know from the courts that it is clear there is a consistency problem. He used the word himself and that is what we need to address here. Of course the courts need flexibility and need to be separate from the Oireachtas, but the Department has a responsibility to monitor what is happening at some level in the courts and where there is a complete breakdown in consistency and sentences that are off the Richter scale, such as in the Joe Drennan case, it shows we have a problem and judges need to be clear the sentencing needs to match the crime. That is what I am asking for.
In general, there is consistency throughout the criminal justice process when it comes to the imposition of sentences. We do not hear about it because it does not give rise to public controversy but consistency is very important. That consistency will be increased and improved when we see judicial guidelines being put forward by the Judicial Council. However, we need to recognise that sometimes - and I am not speaking about any particular case - judges make mistakes and that is why we have the appeals structure that exists. The appeals structure is there to correct mistakes that are made by lower courts. Thus there are systems in place to ensure that if there is a misapplication of the law by a court, it is corrected on appeal. I am very conscious of the responsibility we are asking the Judiciary to perform in respect of sentencing guidelines. I am especially interested in seeing that and the public will also be interested in seeing what the guidelines for certain types of offences are. Serious offences merit serious sentences. However, we must also recognise sentencing is complex. A judge must take into account a number of factors before imposing a sentence.
