Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

JOINT COMMITTEE ON JUSTICE, EQUALITY, DEFENCE AND WOMEN’S RIGHTS (Sub-Committee on the Barron Report) díospóireacht -
Tuesday, 14 Feb 2006

Public Hearings on the Barron Report.

At its last meeting the sub-committee heard testimony from the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Deputy Michael McDowell, the Secretary General of his Department, Mr. Seán Aylward, and the journalist, Mr. Ed Moloney. The transcripts of our meetings to date are available on the Oireachtas website through the parliamentary debates menu option.

This morning we will hear from the Dublin City Coroner, Dr. Brian Farrell. We will also hear later from former detective sergeant, OwenCorrigan. Dr. Farrell has agreed to assist the committee in considering matters falling under its terms of reference with regard to the legislative and other changes, if any, required in regard to the notification to the next of kin at inquests into murders or deaths in suspicious circumstances.

Members enjoy absolute privilege in regard to these proceedings. The level of privilege available to Dr. Farrell is a qualified one and he does not have the same privilege as the members. I welcome Dr. Farrell. Perhaps he will give us some insight into the role of a coroner, in particular in regard to informing relatives of inquest dates and so on.

Dr. Brian Farrell

I thank the Chairman and sub-committee for the invitation to come here this morning. The Chairman has suggested that I might refer to the red booklet, by way of information to the sub-committee. This was prepared for the public. Persons coming to inquests or dealing with the coroner's office would be given a copy of this booklet or would request a copy. We have also provided it to professionals, hospitals and others, at their request.

I do not have an opening statement. I will refer to question No. 1, which asks who is the coroner? In our view the coroner is an independent officeholder with responsibility under the law for the medical-legal investigation of certain deaths. I have explained that the coroner's jurisdiction refers to a group of deaths — sudden, unexplained, violent and unnatural deaths. Those categories of deaths must by law be reported to the coroner. The law governing this area is the Coroners Act 1962. Additional provisions are contained in the Safety, Health and Welfare at Work Act 1989, which also refers to inquests.

On the report of a death the coroner will inquire into the circumstances. A proportion of those deaths will require an autopsy to clarify or establish the cause of death. If the death transpires to be due to unnatural causes, an inquest must be held by law. There is no discretion in the matter. If a death is unnatural, or may be unnatural, or where there are concerns about the circumstances of the death, then an inquest must be held.

We wrote the booklet in 2001. Therefore, it is due for revision. Important developments have taken place since then in terms of the jurisprudence emanating from the European Court of Human Rights. This court has held in its pronouncements that the inquest in common law countries is the means by which the State subserves its substantive and procedural duty to investigate deaths in certain circumstances. In other words, deaths at the hands of the security forces, such as the Garda, deaths in Garda custody and certain deaths that take place in the custody of institutions of the State. The European Court of Human Rights has stated that in the absence of a criminal trial that goes to a guilty verdict, or perhaps in Ireland in the absence of a specific tribunal in regard to a death, then the inquest subserves the State's function in those categories of deaths, in establishing the circumstances of the death and in vindicating the right to life of the deceased person.

An inquest is an inquisitorial process in which we are only concerned with the facts of what happened. We cannot — nor do we want under any new legislation — the power to investigate civil or criminal liability. We do not exonerate. It is a fact-finding, inquisitorial exercise, but we endeavour to make it as comprehensive as possible in order that the relevant facts pertaining to the death are established. I believe it is a matter of public record that we are not satisfied with certain provisions under the current law. The Irish tradition has been that the inquest rubber-stamped the medical cause of death. In other words, death resulted from hanging, shooting or an overdose. That is simply not sufficient, since we must establish the circumstances surrounding the death.

Some of the interpretations of the provisions of the 1962 legislation are contradictory in that regard, and even court decisions can be restrictive. They may be strictly legal interpretations and, of course, we give due cognisance to the common law and the pronouncements of the High Court and Supreme Court. Recently there have been very important judgments, a list of which I can give the committee, that have both extended and restricted the coroner's role. Perhaps the most important recent ruling was in the case of the Eastern Health Board v. the Dublin City Coroner. The court said that the inquest was confined to the proximate cause of death, and we must respect that view.

However, we contend that the proximate cause of death may not be the real one. If someone dies from aspiration pneumonia, the real cause may be a drugs overdose, while pulmonary fibrosis may result from past exposure to asbestos in the workplace. The verdict cannot, therefore, be the proximate, medical cause of death. It must be the true, underlying cause, which ought to be the means by which the death occurred — in other words, the circumstances surrounding it.

We set out in the booklet to explain the coroner's role. No. 4 sets out the broad categories, and we go on to explain what happens when a death is reported. In Dublin approximately 2,200 cases are reported annually, and of that number approximately 410 inquests are held. We would probably perform approximately 1,300 autopsies, a high rate. In other cases of death, we accept a certificate from a medical practitioner, either in general practice or in a hospital. The reason for the high autopsy rate is that there are specific problems in Dublin regarding tertiary referral hospitals. We receive tertiary referrals from all over the country, for example, to the renal unit in the Mater, the burns unit in St. James's or the neurological unit in Beaumont Hospital, leading to a concentration of cases.

We also have problems with drug use in Dublin, and it is a capital city. We have a high autopsy rate because the cases are complicated, and the cause of death may be unclear. If the autopsy shows that death resulted from natural causes and there are no other circumstances of concern, the coroner will sign off on the case. If the families express concerns about some matter, for example, the medical treatment, we must examine that, even in the context of a natural death. There may have been some want of care or other issue. We do not involve ourselves in every complaint that families may have regarding their interaction with the health service, since we cannot provide that kind of service. We are concerned only with allegations that are substantive and may go to establishing the cause of death or have a bearing on the death. Sometimes what appears to be a natural death from the autopsy report may transpire to be unnatural because of the way the patient or person was dealt with by third parties.

If the death is, or may be, unnatural, we have an inquest. An inquest is an inquiry in public by a coroner, sitting with or without a jury, into the circumstances surrounding an unnatural death. There is no discretion. In Northern Ireland there is discretion in regard to the holding of an inquest but Ireland is similar to England and Wales in this regard, in that, an inquest must be held by law when a death is unnatural. The purpose of that is to vindicate the life of a citizen or resident in Ireland, or a visitor to Ireland. Where a person dies in unnatural circumstances there ought to be some authority or means of examining the circumstances of the death. That is what we believe we are about. We do not wish to investigate civil or criminal liability and we ought not to exonerate anybody, but we need to establish the facts and place them on the public record in a neutral but comprehensive manner.

Moving to the reason I am here today, point 18 of this booklet is apropos. Under the heading who can ask questions, the heading could easily be who are the parties to an inquest or who are the interested persons, as we call them. We tend to try to avoid the term "parties" because it is more applicable to adversarial hearings; we say "properly interested persons". They will include the family and next of kin, who are probably the principal interested parties at an inquest; personal representatives of the deceased; and representatives of any board or authority in whose care the deceased was at the time of death. This might be a hospital board, a prison or another institution such as a mental hospital or a hospital for the mentally handicapped.

Those who may have caused the death are obviously interested persons. Persons who hold a life insurance policy, namely, an insurance company holding a life policy on the life of the deceased would also be included. Under the Safety, Health and Welfare at Work Act 1989, representatives of the trade unions, the employer of the deceased, an inspector of the Health and Safety Authority and any other person at the discretion of the coroner would be included. From time to time I am asked to rule on whether a person has standing at an inquest and we would examine that. Usually this is a situation where there would be legal representatives making submissions on the matter. We would rule accordingly depending on the role of that person in the inquest proceedings.

Returning to the issue of notification, the family and next of kin are probably the principal interested parties at inquest. Therefore, they must be notified about the hearing. I have given the committee a copy of the victims' charter of the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform. That was published around 1999. On the second page, under the heading "Inquests", it states, "The family will be informed (most commonly through the gardaí at present) of the date, time and place of the inquest as soon as possible".

I have only one copy of the report of the Coroner's Rules Committee and I will leave it for the information of the committee. It represents the most recent view of the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform. It is entitled the Report of the Coroner's Rules Committee, Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform and I believe it was published in 2002.

Recommendation 6.3, Notice of an Inquest, states that the coroner should arrange to notify the next of kin regarding the holding of an inquest, and the Department suggests a minimum period of two weeks' notice should be given. That followed our deliberations with the committee which extended over a four-year period from 1998 to 2002. Two reports were produced, namely, the coroners' rules committee report and also the main report of the working group review of the Coroner Service.

I can only speak authoritatively from my own practice, but we have always taken the view that the family must have proper notification of an inquest. Our office has an intense interaction with the public. We have ten staff. Families and others such as lawyers, hospitals and the Garda, interact constantly with my staff about how the investigation is going and what we are doing. We can do better but we are endeavouring to keep them informed.

When an autopsy report is received one of my staff would telephone the family and tell them that the coroner is proposing to certify on the coroner's certificate that death is due to natural causes. It also gives the family an opportunity of interacting with us as well, if they have any other concerns.

We would have done that in recent years also as regards the time of death. As well as speaking with the doctors or with the person who found the body, we would also speak with the family and see what issues they have at that early stage.

We get a second opportunity when the autopsy report comes in. If a death is unnatural, we will go to the inquest. We will tell the family there will be an inquest. If the families are legally represented, we will be in constant touch with the solicitors. We will ensure that the families are informed in good time. What I mean by "in good time" depends on the circumstances. There are families who know months beforehand of the date of the inquest. There are others who may know through their solicitor's interaction with us or interaction with my staff or whatever. There are other families with whom we do not have any contact and therefore we must rely on the assistance of the Garda Síochána in dealing with them.

The garda in a coroner's inquiry is acting not only as a garda but also as a coroner's officer. In England and Wales there would be lay coroner's officers appointed to most coroners' offices. These are usually former members of the police who are now retired and acting as coroner's officers.

In Ireland, apart from my own staff whom, I suppose, one could call coroner's officers but who tend to do work in the office and do not go out to scenes, we use the garda as an officer. We would ask the investigating garda who is assisting us, acting as a coroner's officer, to go to the family and notify them of the date of the inquest.

We also write to families. The correspondence is carried out by my staff or we ask the garda to write. We have a standard letter which goes out to the Garda sergeant. The letter includes the list of witnesses. It also states our wish that the family be notified in writing. We may not have notified the family in writing because we did not have the address. I am looking at ways to improve this system, perhaps through direct contact from us in every case. However, it is simply not possible according to my staff. I have spoken to them many times about this issue. We may not know where the family is or there may be issues about their present residence or whereabouts. The garda will have liaised with the family at the time of the formal identification and will know the family.

If the family have not been in touch with my office, we find that asking the garda to act on our behalf is a fail-safe approach. It is fail-safe because if the family are not present at the inquest, I would ask the garda involved to explain why. I would adjourn the inquest unless we have a satisfactory explanation as to why the family did not wish to attend or the family have been in touch with the coroner's office before the hearing. In some cases the garda would say the deceased was an elderly person whose only relative was in a nursing home and unable to attend. If I was satisfied with that information, I would proceed. Those are the only circumstances in which I would do so. A garda might say that, having made inquiries, no family member could be contacted. However, there might be a witness at the inquest who knew a family member or distant relative. In that case I would adjourn and ask the garda concerned to look again. Families invariably attend. It is always a surprise to us if they are not present and we would not proceed without a satisfactory explanation for their absence.

We welcome the minimum period of two weeks but would try to improve on it if we could. If the family does not appear, the inquest ought to be adjourned but this has not been suggested in the deliberations of the Coroner's Rules Committee. However, we think it would be appropriate for the Oireachtas to consider this issue when debating the new Bill.

I thank Dr. Farrell for elaborating on the role of the coroner. I presume he has had an opportunity to read the section of the Barron report on the coroner's inquest into the death of Seamus Ludlow.

Dr. Farrell

Yes, I have.

I wish to read an extract from the report to provide the context for my question. On pages 53 and 54 the report states:

The Coroner for Co. Louth in 1976 was Dr Thomas Scully. He confirmed to C/Supt Murphy that it was his practice to notify the local Gardaí of his intention to hold an inquest and to then agree a suitable date with them. The Gardaí were tasked with notifying all the relevant witnesses and relatives. The inquest into the death of Seamus Ludlow was held on 19 August 1976. None of his family was present, and it appears from C/Supt Murphy's inquiries that none of them was in fact notified in sufficient time for them to attend.

37 Statement of Daniel Boyle, 6 November 1998.

It seems that some efforts were made by Gardaí to contact Kevin Ludlow, brother of the deceased, on the day of the inquest itself. His wife, Agnes, stated that a Garda officer whom she did not know had called to their home at 10.15 a.m. and informed her of the inquest, which was due to start in Dundalk at 11 a.m:

"I asked him if he could put it back and he said no. The reason I wanted it put back was that Kevin, my husband was in work in Newry that day which was about 15 miles away and I had no way of contacting him and in any event it would be too late for the inquest by the time he returned to Dundalk."

Agnes Ludlow then walked two miles to the office of Kevin's employers and asked them to let him know about the inquest. A message was duly conveyed to him at about 11.45 a.m. [That is 45 minutes after the inquest had started.] It was too late by then for him to leave work and travel to Dundalk. Other members of the Ludlow-Sharkey family confirmed to C/Supt Murphy that this represented the sole attempt by Gardaí to contact the family, and that the failure to notify the family was a source of great annoyance to them.

That is a description of what happened regarding the contacting, or not, of the Ludlow-Sharkey family. Will Dr. Farrell comment on the flaws of this in terms of good practice?

As we are not here to criticise anybody, I ask Dr. Farrell to be careful.

Dr. Farrell

While I wish to be helpful I am reluctant to comment on one of my predecessors. It is clear that under our practice this would simply not pass muster. The family was not present and it is our practice in that circumstance that the inquest must be adjourned. The notification process is also unsatisfactory. It seems as if the family was contacted on the day. I do not know the details of this and therefore I cannot help very much. I do not know what were the difficulties, if any, in contacting the family. It is clear that adequate notice is required. This happened 25 years ago.

It was 1976 to 1977.

Dr. Farrell

I will answer the Deputy's question by saying there is nothing in the legislation governing notice to families.

Is there nothing in the legislation relating to procedures of notification?

Dr. Farrell

Nothing.

Is there anything relating to anyone else?

Dr. Farrell

The only interested person who is mentioned in the legislation is a health and safety inspector who is referred to in the health and safety at work legislation. It is interesting that if the inspector does not appear at the inquest, in certain circumstances the coroner must adjourn. However, there is no provision governing any other interested person, including the family and next of kin. There is therefore nothing in the legislation to guide the coroner. In the past 25 years we have developed a best practice and we have also relied on common law. I have given an extract from a publication of ours, which I have highlighted, which refers to the case of McKeown v. Scully, wherein Mr. Justice O’Hanlon said there was a departure from the rules of natural and constitutional justice in failing to give the widow and the next of kin an opportunity to be heard at the inquest. I think in that case the family was also not notified. It is clear we have moved on a lot from the situation in the 1970s. It is a case of best practice by individual coroners according to their likes; there is no guidance at all.

The situation around the country in the past has been that the garda — technically acting for the coroner — was requested to inform the family, but there were no uniform rules.

Would Dr. Farrell welcome a statutory provision of notification?

Dr. Farrell

Yes. In the past ten or 15 years we have been endeavouring to achieve some uniformity of practice. In order to help us I would welcome a statutory provision making it mandatory for adequate and timely notice to be given to the families. However, if the family does not turn up — as in the case of the inspector from the Health and Safety Authority — without good explanation, perhaps because the family has not been contacted or has not received the notice or the letter has not been sent to the house, then the new legislation should provide that in circumstances where there is not a good explanation, the coroner should consider adjourning the matter.

The current procedure and best practice is for the coroner to contact the garda.

Dr. Farrell

Yes.

The garda then contacts the next of kin.

Dr. Farrell

Yes.

What checks are there to ensure the garda carries out that duty? A garda acts as an officer of the Coroner's Court.

Dr. Farrell

It is a very informal procedure. One is relying on the interaction with the garda. If the family does not turn up at the inquest, then I would ask a garda to explain in the face of the court the inquiries he or she has made. Therefore, there is informal, prior interaction if matters arise — supposing the family is not contactable, the garda may ring my office and we will talk about it. At the time of the hearing, however, if the family is not there, I would want a formal explanation from the garda. It is an unusual situation when families are not there. If there is any doubt about contact being made, I would personally advocate that the inquest be adjourned. We have had situations where there have been unhappy splits in families. Sometimes, one side of the family may say they do not want to come and we may become aware that there are other siblings who may wish to come. There are all those sort of dynamics that one must explore. When the family representatives do not come we ask the garda to explain in the face of the court. This is just our practice. There is no guidance in this in the law or any rules. There are no coroners' rules.

In a case where a garda may not carry out the duty to the full letter of the law and turns up on the day or a day beforehand, that might or might not be questioned by the coroner.

Dr. Farrell

The difficulty is that I cannot speak for all my colleagues but I think all of our practice has moved on. Every coroner would be concerned nowadays where a family is not present but obviously I cannot speak authoritatively for all 45 coroners in the country. I understand that the practice has moved on, however. We are cognisant of the situation where families are not present and question the garda on that. Our practice in Dublin is simply not to go ahead with the hearing if we do not get a satisfactory explanation. It is all practice-based, however; there is no letter of the law because there is no law on this.

As a result, procedures will differ from court to court.

Dr. Farrell

Procedures will differ, yes.

It seems, as Dr. Farrell suggests, that a statutory provision would be the only way of dealing with the matter, to outline clearly the remit.

Dr. Farrell

A statutory provision is essential for the coroner for guidance purposes. In our interaction with the gardaí acting as coroner's officers, it would also help to point to a statutory provision. That could go in the substantive Act or in the coroner's rules. I understand that the Oireachtas will be hearing about the proposal to enact new legislation and also to append as a statutory instrument the coroners' rules or a variation of those. These go to practice rather than the law — the law being contained in the substantive Act and the practice being contained in the coroners' rules. This is the situation that pertains in England and Wales; there is an Act and then there are coroners' rules to guide coroners as to best practice.

I wish to take this matter a little further, Chairman. Dr. Farrell does not have any authority to compel anybody to come to his court, is that correct?

Dr. Farrell

Yes. There are other deficiencies in the Act. One of them is the compellability of witnesses. The new Coroners (Amendment) Act has helped somewhat in that regard. That is Deputy Rabbitte's Bill which was accepted by the Government before Christmas. It was passed into law just before the end of 2005. That helped in that it increased the sanction from a derisory £5 to €3,000. There is another provision for imprisonment where a recalcitrant witness refuses to attend. The Act also has a provision concerning a juror who does not turn up, having been properly summoned. That has helped because at least we can point to a realistic sanction that would be of concern to anybody who was thinking of not coming to an inquest, having been duly summoned.

The difficulty is that it does not secure the witness, if the witness is prepared to pay the fine. There is no way to compel the witness to attend. There is a provision in the 1962 Act whereby a coroner could apply to the High Court, with the court considering the application in a summary manner. The High Court is not a court of summary jurisdiction so that section of the present Act has been found unconstitutional as far back as In re Haughey which I think was in 1972, and more recently in Desmond v. Glackin, a case involving the Companies Act. It is on record that the compellability provisions are unconstitutional so we have no method of securing the recalcitrant witness who is prepared to run the hazard of the sanction, even the updated one.

Is it Dr. Farrell's contention therefore that a fine is not a sufficient sanction and that powers of compellability would be needed?

Dr. Farrell

Yes, absolutely. There must be a power of compellability to secure a material witness who has evidence pertaining to the death. The coroner must also have the power to seek the attendance of that witness by application of whatever procedure is appropriate.

In the first instance, the next of kin is paramount in terms of being notified and attending. Next, witnesses should be compelled. Next of kin may well attend but may not have the ability to cross-examine. There is currently no legal aid for them to do so. Do next of kin suffer to some extent in terms of not being able to carry out the functions they would wish to have in terms of cross-examining and being represented in court?

Dr. Farrell

A family member is frequently a witness at an inquest. As that person may have identified the deceased person, he or she will give that formal evidence. Some member of the family may have been the last person to see the deceased alive, or may have found the person dead, for example. Family members are frequently witnesses. With regard to questions, the family has a right, whether legally represented or not, to ask questions. I would tell families at the outset of the inquest that they are entitled to legal representation but that if they are not legally represented they may ask questions. In terms of procedure, they address me. I put questions to witnesses in the witness box. Witnesses can ask any questions they wish within the jurisdiction of the inquest.

It is true that there is no formal legal aid available at inquests. There is an Attorney General scheme and I understand the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform has a discretion which has been exercised in rare cases. I am aware of a number of cases where one or other of those procedures has been invoked, and persons have had legal aid, but there is no provision with the Legal Aid Board to provide assistance. I understand the instances I have noted are discretionary exceptional matters for the family applying.

The next of kin would not be automatically informed of that discretionary entitlement.

Dr. Farrell

If they asked our office, we would tell them, but we would first say there is no legal aid, then tell them they could speak to the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform about the matter.

It is gardaí who notify witnesses and next of kin. Are gardaí the right people to carry out that function, or should separate officers of the Coroner's Court carry it out?

Dr. Farrell

We are very grateful for the assistance we get from the Garda Síochána which assists us as coroner's officers. It provides a lot of help. In England and Wales, the coroner's officers are not usually members of the constabulary, so to speak. They are lay people assigned to the coroner. In an ideal world, that might be a very good system to have in Ireland but the reality is that we will probably continue to use gardaí as coroner's officers. I acknowledge their help. We must supervise what they do. The gardaí are in constant communication with my office about what they should be doing. If things go wrong, I would make representations to the garda in question or the inspector. We try to maintain good relationships but issues have occasionally occurred and we have tried to deal with them.

I presume the Deputy is asking which would be the better system. In an ideal world, it would probably be better to have our own coroner's officers. That is not to denigrate the role of the Garda.

What happens in Dr. Farrell's office? Does he contact a particular garda or does it depend on whatever Garda station is relevant to the incident?

Dr. Farrell

In the past it has varied. Store Street Garda station is next door to my office and a sergeant there has dealt with us. However, we have not been able to maintain that because of the turnover of gardaí in various stations. Normally, the investigating Garda member dealing with the matter would act as coroner's officer. That garda would take statements on our behalf and help in notification. He or she would be our coroner's officer. It is quite informal.

Where does Dr. Farrell get him or her?

Dr. Farrell

He or she would be the garda in whose district the death occurred. That garda would normally be present at the identification stage.

If for example there were a dead body in the Bridewell area, would there be a designated person in the Garda station whom the coroner's office would contact?

Dr. Farrell

No. If a person dies in the Bridewell district, the deceased might be brought to a hospital mortuary or to the Dublin city mortuary. Two steps are involved. If a death occurs in Beaumont Hospital, for example, Santry is the local Garda station, so a garda from there would go to Beaumont and oversee the formal identification of the deceased on behalf of the coroner and would send my office a C71 form with preliminary information, confirming the identification.

If the deceased died in the Santry area, the station would also investigate the matter and take statements on our behalf. The same station would have the function of identification and investigation. However, if that person was referred from Donegal to the neurosurgical unit in Beaumont Hospital, Santry Garda station would oversee the identification but the investigation would have to happen in Donegal, because that is where the incident would have occurred. All depends on the situation.

One final point relates to the other Garda role. In terms of assembling the jury, has the Garda a role in selection? What is the jury selection method? In a case such as that involving Seamus Ludlow, would a jury always be essential?

Dr. Farrell

Yes. There is a requirement under section 40 of the Coroners Act for a jury in certain circumstances, such as homicide, or where the death may have occurred in the workplace, or as a result of a road traffic incident, or in circumstances that may be prejudicial to the health and safety of the public. That is a broader provision.

A jury is required in certain circumstances under section 40. We have asked the Department to consider reducing the requirement and make it discretionary to have juries in the case of road traffic incidents as there is a difficulty in impanelling a jury for every road traffic accident. We have advocated that the jury should be retained in all other circumstances. The jury represents the public interest in the proper sense of that phrase. A number of citizens are adjudicating on the death of one of their fellow citizens in Dublin city. As such, they must have the evidence presented to them, be properly charged in respect of it and bring in findings and a verdict.

The jury is impanelled by the Garda, to which we would write and ask to provide six to 12 members for the jury. We have tightened up the way in which this is done as the Juries Act 1976, while primarily referring to criminal juries, refers in its appendices to coroners' juries. We must make sure that jury members are resident in the district of the coroner, within the prescribed age range and that there are no conflicts of interest, such as lay persons employed in a Garda station. They must be seen to be independent and persons who are qualified under the Schedules to the 1976 Act.

When we are investigating a death that has occurred by, for example, a shooting by members of the security forces or the Garda or a death has occurred in prison, we have adopted the practice — with the greatest respect to the Garda — that we will get the jury. This is to show our independence in the matter. We will impanel the jury in certain circumstances but, in the majority of cases, the Garda will assist us.

The Garda Commissioner wrote to us and it was his recommendation that it would be more appropriate for the coroner's office to have the necessary administrative capability to service the assembly of a jury for a coroner's court rather than the Garda. Would Dr. Farrell agree that it should be the role of the Coroner's Court in all cases? It must be very difficult for the Garda to assemble a broadly-based jury. There is always a danger that corners might be cut in the rush to get people together on the day.

Dr. Farrell

The Deputy is perfectly right. It is difficult for us and the Garda to impanel a jury. We need many juries in Dublin, which was the basis of our request to the Department to consider reducing the requirement for juries in all road traffic accidents. One of the recommendations in the report is that the coroner should be given access to the electoral or Circuit Court lists, from which we should choose our jurors. While it is difficult, it would also be very difficult for the coroner. We may need some assistance in serving jury summonses and so forth. I accept that, in an ideal situation, it would be better if the coroner impanelled the jury.

I will be brief as Deputy Costello has covered most of the issues. I will address the matter at the centre of this subject, namely, the notice of an inquest. From Dr. Farrell's comments, it is obvious that all we currently have is good practice, which could vary from one jurisdiction to another. After 25 years and despite the fact that there were obvious flaws in the system and proper notice was not given at particular inquests, we have failed to introduce it in regulations.

I want to tease out how one could put it in regulation. When one speaks about giving notice to the next of kin, they or people with a genuine interest in the person who has died can vary completely. A brother and sister could have no interest or total interest. A first, third or fourth cousin or even a neighbour could have been particularly close to the person. How would it be possible to insert that provision in regulation or is this the reason it has not yet been done?

Dr. Farrell

I do not know the reason it has not been introduced but we have advocated that it be done. The Deputy is right in that there are difficulties in reaching all of the family members. I will go back to the point I made initially, namely, this is why we still use the Garda to contact families. It is often the case that gardaí have met the family during the identification or the preliminary inquiry and may be able to tell us that, for example, there are two sides to this family or there is a partner or a common law wife. We afford the same rights in our practice to common law wives and families as we do to families as defined under the Constitution. We are trying to do our best to identify the broad extended family but it is very difficult and I am sure we do not do it right in all cases. All I can say is that we try to do it right.

On the co-operation between all of the coroners' offices and the Garda generally, I accept that, over the years, there has been a change in the way members of the Garda Síochána in particular have been deployed. They were mostly community-based gardaí 20 years ago who knew everyone in their areas. Now, they largely work shifts of eight hours per day and do not live in the community in which they work. The type of traditional contact expected of them 20 years ago is diminishing. Additionally, due to shift work and transfers, there is not the same continuity.

In my opinion, that co-operation with the Garda is getting less effective and might indicate the need for more resources for the coroners' offices to replace to a certain extent the functions of the Garda. The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform is currently proposing a part-time community-based force. Perhaps there could be a role for its members in assisting the coroners' offices.

Dr. Farrell

I agree with the Deputy's comments in respect of more provisions for the coroners and their staff. In Ireland, I am the only coroner lucky enough to have staff. The majority do not. They are using their own resources and practices as solicitors, medical professionals and even a number of barristers to provide this service.

I understand the proposals being considered are that the number of coroners in Ireland should be reduced. There are approximately 45 or 46 coroners here but only seven in the North of Ireland. That number may have been reduced to four recently. Another proposal is that the offices should be regionalised with proper back-up staff, including coroners' officers, which I would certainly support. That would not only facilitate more standardisation of practice but allow the coroners to address the issues raised by members of the sub-committee, such as notifying witnesses, impanelling juries and, most importantly, liaising with families. We need resources to do so. I do not know whether we will ever totally get away from asking for Garda assistance in certain circumstances but, if we were given more resources, we could carry out more of these functions.

Commissioner Noel Conroy wrote to the committee. He stated that he agreed the coroner should release documents to interested parties except in certain circumstances. He further stated that this needs to be defined exactly. What is Dr. Farrell's experience of withholding documents from interested parties?

Dr. Farrell

I will start with the law. There is no provision for releasing documents before the hearing. The current legal provision concerning documents refers to depositions taken at the inquest, the verdict of the inquest and the autopsy report being released after the hearing. In the past few years, families and their legal representatives have increasingly requested papers prior to the inquest. This is one of the more contentious issues in coroner's practice.

The system has evolved in the past few years. When I was appointed in 1991, I inherited a system that did not allow for release of documents before the hearing. Considering applications made by families and their representatives, and where there was a technical matter involving a complicated medical issue, we resiled from that position. I took the view that if all interested parties were able to participate in the inquest they should have sight of technical documents, such as the autopsy report and thetoxicology report.

We have extended that to include preliminary statements made to the coroner in those types of technical inquests, where the interested persons would need sight of the documentation to participate. That has moved on further because families and their representatives are aware that we will release documentation in certain circumstances. We are receiving more and more applications for release of documents. If the death occurs at the hands of, or in the custody of, the State it has been submitted to me by counsel that under the Constitution and more recently under the European Convention on Human Rights, they are entitled to participate in this inquest. If the inquest is subserving the duty of the State to investigate these matters, counsel argues it ought to have sight of the documentation and we provide it in such cases.

The practice has evolved. Sometimes lawyers wonder why they cannot see every document we have. I respond that as a death investigator acting on behalf of the public, I ought to be able to see everything concerning the death. I tell investigating gardaí that they can write anything they wish on the C71 form, including personal, private or criminal details. This will not necessarily be divulged if it is not relevant to the inquest. We need to retain some discretion regarding the material we receive. If we are to investigate a death we must receive all information but we cannot place all this information on the public record. It may not be within our jurisdiction and it may be intrusive on the family or another party. Legal representatives do not understand this and feel we are withholding information. We attempt to ensure the death investigation is as comprehensive as possible in order that persons providing information for us are assured it will not be gratuitously placed on the public record unless it is relevant to the inquiry.

This situation is evolving and I have not received any final answer. Releasing documents before the hearing may become the norm and we are moving in that direction. Many coroners would baulk at that as they contend they do not have the resources to release documents so I do not claim to speak for all my colleagues. Under fair procedure and natural justice we are evolving in that direction and this trend will probably continue. There is nothing in law at present and we would welcome discussion, debate and guidance from the Department and the Oireachtas.

I wish to ask a question on regulation and good practice. We have lost the run of ourselves as some seem to be obsessed with regulation. I think the sensible option would be for the coroner's office to take control, accept responsibility and write to the families involved.

Dr. Farrell

I accept that is the best practice and ought to be followed.

I thank Dr. Farrell for appearing before the committee and explaining to us in great detail the work of the city coroner and the matter we have been asked to examine, the notification of family members of inquests.

Dr. Farrell

I thank the Chairman and the sub-committee.

Sitting suspended at 11.57 a.m. and resumed at 11.58 a.m.

We resume in public session with our next witness, former Detective Sergeant Mr. Owen Corrigan. Before Mr. Corrigan commences, I advise him that members enjoy absolute privilege but witnesses have only a qualified privilege. We are considering the extent to which gardaí interviewed witnesses or suspects in the Six Counties. Mr. Corrigan has had the opportunity to read the Official Report of sub-committee hearings. Does he have any comments?

Mr. Corrigan

I have read the Barron report and agree entirely with its contents. I am willing to assist the sub-committee to the best of my ability.

I thank Mr. Corrigan for assisting the sub-committee. He was involved in the investigation of the murder of Mr. Seamus Ludlow. Where did Mr. Corrigan stand in the seniority of the team investigating the case?

Mr. Corrigan

I was the detective sergeant, the senior member of the detective branch in Dundalk at the time. Detective Chief Superintendent Dan Murphy was in charge of the investigation. Superintendent Courtney was next in command.

Did Mr. Corrigan travel to Belfast with Superintendent Courtney?

Mr. Corrigan

That is correct.

Did Mr. Corrigan meet two members of the RUC there?

Mr. Corrigan

That is correct.

Prior to that meeting a letter came from the RUC on 30 January.

Mr. Corrigan

Yes.

That letter indicated who were the prime suspects.

Mr. Corrigan

I was not aware of that.

Mr. Corrigan was not aware of that at the time. What was the intention of the meeting in Belfast?

Mr. Corrigan

Initially.

Mr. Corrigan

In other words, what was the purpose of going to Belfast? I had received information regarding the bombings in Dundalk, on the make and colour of a car used, the identity of a person and the location at which that person resided in Belfast. That person was connected to the loyalist fraternity. That was our initial investigation. Detective Chief Superintendent Bill Mooney, now sadly laid to rest, stated two members of the RUC had information on the Ludlow murder. I knew Superintendent Mooney well because I had been in Dundalk for a considerable number of years. He was near enough on par with Superintendent Courtney regarding serious crimes committed in the South for which people in the North were sought.

Superintendent Courtney and I were introduced to the members of the RUC by Superintendent Mooney. We proceeded to talk to them and found out as much as we could. We knew all of the background to the case, such as the location and the terrain. We went over the sequence of events with them regarding the background of these men. Having got that information, we started on their activities and itinerary on the night in question, including when they left Northern Ireland for Dundalk and where they picked up the victim. In other words, the period of time that elapsed between their leaving the outskirts of Dundalk until they turned right down a laneway, and the exact sequence of events after that. The body was found on the side of a ditch facing towards the main road, and at least two people would have been required to lift it to there from ground level.

We clarified every single point because in such a situation one did not know the RUC's motive. They stated at least 18 months had elapsed since they received the information. Taking all of the information into account we were satisfied it was valuable information towards solving the crime.

As Mr. Corrigan had been investigating the crime, he was in possession of a certain amount of the facts surrounding the killing.

Mr. Corrigan

Yes.

Did Mr. Corrigan find the information he received in Belfast coincided with the information he already had?

Mr. Corrigan

Absolutely. That is what interested me so much. I was in possession of all of the facts on the terrain and the sequence of events. The great detail which the RUC had at its disposal surprised me. They were consulting notes, but they were able to affirm many different aspects of the circumstances. I wondered how they could be so clear on the exact details of what had happened, given the time that had passed.

Did Mr. Corrigan feel this information was credible.

Mr. Corrigan

Absolutely.

Did he feel the information should have been pursued subsequently?

Mr. Corrigan

Yes, absolutely. One is apprehensive about information relayed to one in such circumstances. I felt that I was not to judge the delay in forwarding the information to us. I had to make the best of what we had. I was so excited at seeing this breakthrough. No developments in solving the crime had come in our direction. I was heartened when I heard this. The more I probed the matter with them, the more convinced I became that we had good suspects for the crime.

Did either Mr. Corrigan or Superintendent Courtney ask the RUC the reason for not disclosing the information much earlier, given that they had it?

Mr. Corrigan

No. I was grateful to get it and I did not query the delay. This extremely serious crime happened on my patch. It was in my interest as the senior detective and the interest of every member in Dundalk district to solve it.

There is an outline on pages 21 and 22 of Superintendent Courtney's report on that. I take it Mr. Corrigan has read it.

Mr. Corrigan

I have, yes.

Does Mr. Corrigan agree with it?

Mr. Corrigan

Yes.

Mr. Corrigan was involved in the investigation from the outset when themurder happened.

Mr. Corrigan

That is right.

Was Mr. Corrigan aware of the questioning of Kevin Donegan by the British military on 5 May 1976? Did he find out about it shortly thereafter?

Mr. Corrigan

No. It was mentioned in the general run of things but I was not aware of the details.

Was Mr. Corrigan aware that he was questioned?

Mr. Corrigan

I was aware that he had been interviewed at some stage.

Was Mr. Corrigan aware that he was questioned on information that may have been in the possession of the Garda at that time?

Mr. Corrigan

No. As I stated, I was not aware of the details. I heard in general conversation that he had been questioned by the RUC.

Between the events of 1976 and the visit to Belfast, what were Mr. Corrigan's thoughts on the identity of the more likely suspects?

Mr. Corrigan

I had an open mind. If I may, I will give an outline of the situation at that stage as it would be difficult for anyone to appreciate the turbulence experienced in that part of the country. I will give an indication to all concerned and members of the committee. A body had been shot and left on the side of the road. At the same time, Captain Robert Nairac, an SAS officer, was kidnapped less than two miles away, brought across the Border and shot. His body was dumped within a quarter of a mile of the Ludlow scene. The Dublin-Belfast train, which ran parallel to the Dublin-Belfast road, was blocked every week and the mail was robbed. The British Army or the RUC would not touch it because the terrain of south Armagh was not open to them for examination. It was left there week in week out.

Kidnappings were taking place, such as when Mr. Ben Dunne was kidnapped on his way to open a supermarket in Newry. All of this happened within a two mile radius. I am explaining the situation of general mayhem and turbulence of the time. Members of the SAS entering the State were arrested and taken to the Special Criminal Court. We had an open mind on the general list of suspects at the initial stages of the investigation. One could guess but could not state with any degree of certainty who might be responsible for the crime.

Where did Mr. Corrigan see the greatest threat in the Border area and Dundalk at that stage? He was in the thick of what was happening during the 1970s.

Mr. Corrigan

Absolutely. I would not hazard a guess as to from where the greatest threat came. Threats were coming at us from so many angles. We operated a fire brigade service, if the committee will excuse the expression. I gave an indication of the events at the time, which were a daily occurrence and included explosions on the Border. The Minister at the time, Mr. Collins, and Mr. Richard Cotterell outlined the situation fully. I am acquainting the committee with the localised situation.

Mr. Corrigan said he had a good contact within the RUC who gave him information relating to the Dundalk bombing.

Mr. Corrigan

Yes.

Why was there no contact with the RUC with regard to information it might have had about the Ludlow murder? Is Mr.Corrigan saying that he received that information coincidentally having visited Belfast in relation to another matter?

Mr. Corrigan

That is correct.

It strikes me — I know it is easy to say this with the benefit of hindsight — that in this instance a routine inquiry from the RUC would surely have been a matter of procedure at that time.

Mr. Corrigan

I was, as I have already briefly outlined to the joint committee, stationed in Dundalk during the most turbulent period in this country's history. In my experience the RUC would not have been as forthcoming in supplying information on matters relating to the loyalist side as they would have been in relation to those on the Nationalist side. That was my overall assessment of the situation.

Did the RUC mention to Mr. Corrigan during his visit to Belfast the paramilitary organisation to which the suspects were attached?

Mr. Corrigan

They may have done so, I am not sure. They did not mention the specific organisation but may have mentioned they were Red Hand Commandos or something like that. They did not specify any particular organisation. Just as in the South, there were in existence a number of loyalist paramilitary splinter groups, namely, UVF, LVF, Red Hand Commandos and so on.

Did they mention that any of them were members of the security forces in the North?

Mr. Corrigan

No, they did not.

Does Mr. Corrigan have any information with regard to the conversation between Superintendent Courtney and Detective Sergeant Dan Boyle as outlined in the Barron report? Did either man discuss that conversation with Mr. Corrigan?

Mr. Corrigan

No. I should mention that the RUC gave us no information in relation to the car used in the Dundalk bombing.

Did Mr. Corrigan ask for assistance in that matter?

Mr. Corrigan

Yes, I did. We went to Northern Ireland specifically to get that information. We visited a loyalist area off the Crumlin Road to explore and develop the issue.

Mr. Corrigan is speaking of the car involved in the bombing.

Mr. Corrigan

Yes. We were dismissed and given no information in that regard.

What did Mr. Corrigan believe was their reason for not giving the information?

Mr. Corrigan

I cannot say. As I said, in my experience we did not get the same level of co-operation when dealing with matters of a Nationalist nature as we did when dealing with matters of a loyalist nature. Superintendent Courtney, who was au fait with Mr. Mooney, was present at the time and was bitterly disappointed with the attitude taken in relation to the matter. We had to weigh up all our options. We had to explore the reason the information was released by them after 18 months.

Mr. Justice Barron concludes in his report that a conversation took place between Superintendent Courtney and Detective Sergeant Boyle during which Mr. Courtney said he was advised that C3 would not be pursuing the matter any further. Was Mr. Corrigan aware of that conversation at the time?

Mr. Corrigan

I was not privy to that conversation. Whatever I might have to say would relate to what Mr. Courtney relayed to me.

Did Mr. Courtney speak to Mr. Corrigan about the matter at the time?

Mr. Corrigan

Yes. I was devastated when the case was not pursued. I returned from Dundalk very excited about developments in terms of the identification of what I considered to be good suspects for the crime. To be honest, I was elated and could not wait to have them interviewed. I must emphasise we were not eager to interview the suspects ourselves but to have them interviewed on our behalf. Mr. Courtney was an extremely conscientious officer and I was delighted to have a man of his calibre on the team. I was eager to proceed with the case because as Mr. Courtney was the Border superintendent he was liable to be called away at any given time if his expertise was needed in another situation anywhere in the country. I believe it was necessary to strike——

While the iron was hot.

Mr. Corrigan

Yes, precisely. I needed to utilise the expertise of Superintendent Courtney in order to solve the crime. I believed if we had any chance of solving the murder, it would be with the assistance of Mr. Courtney. As a senior detective, I was in daily contact with Mr. Courtney as Border superintendent. We were not short of topics to discuss given the mayhem that was prevalent on the Border with incidents raining in at us from all angles. Superintendent Courtney submitted his report to C3. When I asked him approximately one week later if he had any news on the matter, he said he had not. I asked him to again pursue the matter. I believed it was important the matter be pursued given no progress had been made during the previous 18 months and the likelihood that the superintendent could be transferred to another area at any time. As I understand it, he went in at that stage and rang C3. I do not know what happened. He told me he had spoken to Mr. Boyle although I do not know if that is true; I was not privy to the telephone conversation. I raised this matter with him on almost a daily basis because I was anxious to solve the crime.

Was Mr. Corrigan ever in the company of Superintendent Courtney when he rang Mr. Boyle?

Mr. Corrigan

No. Mr. Courtney's office was separate to that of the detective branch.

Did Mr. Courtney convey to Mr. Corrigan that he had been told not to proceed with the case?

Mr. Corrigan

Yes. I asked him why the case was not to be pursued. I was absolutely devastated that this case, the solving of which I had personally dedicated so much time to, was not to be pursued.

What in Mr. Corrigan's view should have been the next step?

Mr. Corrigan

I believed we should have sought permission to go to Northern Ireland to put to the RUC, in synopsis form, the sequence of events, those we believed were involved, the terrain and so on in order to allow them to conduct the relevant interviews.

Mr. Corrigan hoped the interviews would be conducted by the RUC.

Mr. Corrigan

Yes, I was looking forward to that happening and was hoping to visit Northern Ireland within a week.

Had the RUC interviewed suspects on behalf of the Garda on previous occasions?

Mr. Corrigan

I was not involved in any cases where that happened. It happened only on rare occasions. I believed that on that occasion we needed to make the most of the opportunity presented to us.

When Mr. Corrigan heard the names of the suspects, was that the first occasion on which he had heard of them?

Mr. Corrigan

Yes.

What, in Mr. Corrigan's view, was the reason the investigation fizzled out? Was it for reasons related to extradition, as outlined on page 51 of the Barron report?

Mr. Corrigan

I could not speculate on that which would be a matter for higher echelons in the force.

Does Mr. Corrigan recall that he and Chief Superintendent Dan Murphy interviewed James Sharkey subsequent to the murder?

Mr. Corrigan

No.

Mr. Corrigan has no recollection of such an interview having taken place?

Mr. Corrigan

No.

What then is his response to the reference in the Barron report that he adopted an aggressive attitude in that regard? Am I correct that Mr. Corrigan has no recollection of that interview?

Mr. Corrigan

No, I do not recall it. I might add that Detective Superintendent Murphy would not have been involved in interviewing suspects. He was in overall charge at the time and such matters would have been dealt with by the men on the ground.

The report also alleges that the Garda Síochána was, at certain stages, blaming the IRA for the murder.

Mr. Corrigan

That is not correct.

I take it the investigative team was based in the Garda station in Dundalk.

Mr. Corrigan

That is correct.

Did it discuss the possibility of IRA involvement?

Mr. Corrigan

Yes. The possibility was mentioned given the prevailing circumstances as I outlined to the joint committee. We had to keep an open mind in relation to the subversive element.

I am sure Mr. Corrigan is aware of the family's disappointment that they were led to believe during the 1970s and 1980s that the IRA were the perpetrators of the murder.

Mr. Corrigan

I am sorry to hear that.

Did Mr. Corrigan have discussions with any members of the family?

Mr. Corrigan

Yes, I had ongoing discussions with Mr. Kevin Ludlow whom I found to be an extremely amenable and sociable person. I have met him on a number of occasions and would speak very highly of him.

Were there any discussions with Mr. Kevin Ludlow in which the IRA was raised?

Mr. Corrigan

No.

I apologise for being late. I welcome Mr. Corrigan and thank him for his presence which the sub-committee very much values and finds very helpful. Can he account for stories that were widely spread, following the murder of Séamus Ludlow, that members of the Ludlow family were responsible and involved in his murder?

Mr. Corrigan

No, I cannot.

From our discussions with the family, it seems it was suggested by the Garda Síochána at the time that family members were involved in the murder. We know they were not but the suggestion that they were was very upsetting for the family.

Mr. Corrigan

No, I never considered that any of the family was involved in the murder. That never entered my head.

Will Mr. Corrigan bring us through the developments that led the Garda to change its opinion that the IRA was involved in the murder to the belief a loyalist group was responsible?

Mr. Corrigan

There was no information that pointed at anybody until Detective Superintendent Courtney and I arrived in Belfast on 14 February 1979 in regard to the other matters outlined in my evidence to the sub-committee.

Has Mr. Corrigan information available to him that he would be prepared to give privately to the sub-committee rather than publicly?

Mr. Corrigan

No, I have not.

I welcome Mr. Corrigan and thank him for his co-operation. He commented that he and the Garda Síochána had an open mind regarding the murder of Séamus Ludlow. However, the Barron report and the evidence of the family give the impression that Mr. Corrigan did not have an open mind. There was concern that, perhaps, there was a lack of professionalism or objectivity in regard to the murder. Mr. Corrigan made the point that the SAS, the IRA, and loyalist death squads were all coming into north Louth and that it was very chaotic. I accept this.

Does the Deputy mean the Garda?

I mean the Garda. I understand the point regarding the political scenario at the time. However, it seems that all of a sudden all of the gardaí thought it was the IRA that killed Séamus Ludlow. There was also a rumour that Séamus Ludlow looked like an IRA man who was in Dundalk or the County Louth area at the time. Did Mr. Corrigan hear that story?

Mr. Corrigan

No, I never did.

With regard to the professionalism of the Garda, is Mr. Corrigan happy that he did his best, as a professional, objective policeman, to find out who had murdered Séamus Ludlow?

Mr. Corrigan

Absolutely.

Is Mr. Corrigan satisfied of this?

Mr. Corrigan

I can say here, without fear of contradiction, that I worked extremely hard to try to bring this to a successful conclusion.

Is all the speculation that the Garda was looking in only one direction wrong?

Mr. Corrigan

I do not listen to speculation. Speculation is speculation. I can do nothing about it.

I refer to a report Mr.Corrigan made in December 1976 in which he stated: "Subject has three brothers and none of them is a member of the PIRA". Does that mean that in December 1976 it was well known to the Garda that none of the Ludlow family, including Séamus Ludlow, was connected with the IRA in any way?

Mr. Corrigan

No. I was putting my opinion on paper that none of the family was connected to the IRA.

Was that the official position at the time?

Mr. Corrigan

Yes.

That is what was in Mr.Corrigan's report.

Mr. Corrigan

That is right. In other words, from the family's point of view, I wanted to make it very clear that none of the brothers was connected in any way to the IRA.

Subsequent to that, because it seems very puzzling to us that there should be so many questions in regard to IRA membership, did Mr. Corrigan hear that the Garda seemed to be suggesting the IRA had been involved in the matter?

Mr. Corrigan

I could not comment on that matter. There is gossip in all of these investigations.

Did Mr. Corrigan hear any rumours in regard to the Garda?

Mr. Corrigan

No, I did not.

The 1953 directive, mentioned in a footnote in the Barron report, dealt with reciprocal arrangements for members of the Garda going to the North and officers from another jurisdiction coming into the jurisdiction of the Republic to question suspects. It seemed to provide that this should not take place. Was Mr. Corrigan aware of this directive?

Mr. Corrigan

I was not aware of it. I have never seen it. I was aware something was in place. However, my understanding at the time, which is a considerable time ago, was that it referred to police coming from other jurisdictions to the Republic. I was not aware there was a reciprocal arrangement. There may have been. My understanding was that the directive — I stress I have not seen it — referred to police coming from other jurisdictions into ours.

Regarding the practice of gardaí going across the Border in connection with suspects who might have committed an offence in the Republic, what did Mr. Corrigan understand to be the procedure in those circumstances?

Mr. Corrigan

As I said, I was the senior detective in Dundalk during his turbulent period in our history. My understanding was that if anyone made contact with the RUC, one would have to have persons interviewed in Northern Ireland by assembling the notes on the file, travelling to the North and assisting the RUC in interviewing the persons concerned.

Would the RUC conduct the interview in the presence of gardaí?

Mr. Corrigan

Absolutely. As far as I was concerned, for any member of the Garda stationed in Dundalk, travelling to Northern Ireland was an extremely risky business from a personal point of view. Dundalk was a high profile station and the personnel there all had a high profile and were known, as were any dealings they might have had with loyalists. It was suggested there was collusion with the RUC during the years. Many security aspects had to be considered before ever leaving this jurisdiction. I would have been most reluctant to do so. I would never have done it were it not that such a serious crime as the bombing in Dundalk had been committed and I was anxious to develop the area to which I referred. That is why I was in Belfast in the first place. I certainly did not make a habit of going to the North.

Did Mr. Corrigan go in uniform?

Mr. Corrigan

I was not in uniform.

Is Mr. Corrigan aware of other officers who crossed the Border to be involved in interviews?

Mr. Corrigan

Only from what has arisen here.

Mr. Corrigan was the senior officer on the Border.

Mr. Corrigan

That is right.

For what period?

Mr. Corrigan

From 1975. I retired in 1992. During the turbulent time I was the senior detective there from 1976 to 1981, the hunger strike culminated and there was a general election in the South when five Sinn Féin candidates were elected. This led to a high state of alert around Dundalk and Border areas. There was tension all over the place.

With regard to preparing notes and going to interview people with the RUC, how often did this occur during the period Mr.Corrigan was there, from 1976 to 1981?

Mr. Corrigan

By myself?

No. How often does Mr. Corrigan believe that notes were prepared within the Dundalk district and either he or others went to the Six Counties to conduct interviews?

Mr. Corrigan

I do not know. I cannot say. I imagine it was certainly seven or eight times and maybe ten times in my total service there. It would have been more or less in regard to——

Was that ten times between 1976 and 1981?

Mr. Corrigan

Yes, in or about that. I cannot be more specific than that.

I apologise to Deputy Costello. I was following a point he made earlier.

That was most relevant. In the case in question — the Seamus Ludlow case — where, as Mr. Corrigan said, the information received from the RUC was very valuable, would he have travelled to the North himself or did he envisage going with Superintendent Courtney or whoever else was to be involved in the interviewing of those suspects at that time?

Mr. Corrigan

No, I would never have envisaged interviewing those suspects.

What about travelling to the North to be present while the RUC conducted the interviews?

Mr. Corrigan

We would not have been present. We gave them notes and they would have interviewed the suspects on their own terrain. There is very little difference between being present and interviewing them. If one is present, one is an accessory to the interview.

Did Mr. Corrigan not envisage a situation where he would have travelled to the North?

Mr. Corrigan

No, but if the situation arose and I saw that this information was available — I did not realise until we spoke to the two officers that it was as good as it was. We had chased other information that turned out to be groundless.

We know that Superintendent Cotterell had made arrangements to go to Glasgow to interview, or be present at, the interview of one of the suspects, which had to be called off.

Mr. Corrigan

I was not aware of that.

Would Mr. Corrigan not have been involved in it?

Mr. Corrigan

No. I can only speak for myself. I am not aware that Superintendent Courtney was aware of this either.

Would Mr. Corrigan have envisaged a difference between travelling to the North and travelling to Glasgow or elsewhere on mainland Britain?

Mr. Corrigan

Mainland Britain would have been safer than travelling to the North for a member of the force stationed in a place like Dundalk.

I have one last question. Mr. Corrigan described how anxious he was that the matter would be pursued. He said he suggested to Superintendent Courtney that he should take up the matter with C3 and that he should make sure to get a definite response. Mr. Corrigan stated that the superintendent telephoned C3 on a number of occasions. Did he ever discuss with Mr. Corrigan the exact outcome of those telephone calls?

Mr. Corrigan

No, as I said, he just said that I went in to him practically on a daily basis after the first week had elapsed, that I was very anxious that we pursue it with the greatest degree of urgency in our possession. When he told me I was dumbfounded and I asked him why.

When he told Mr. Corrigan what?

Mr. Corrigan

When he told me that he had been on to C3 and that the matter was not being pursued.

Did he say the investigation was not being pursued?

Mr. Corrigan

No, the investigation in regard to the interview of the suspects. We expected to be going to Belfast to have them interviewed.

I apologise for cutting across Deputy Costello but Mr. Corrigan said a minute ago that he did not expect to be travelling to the North.

Mr. Corrigan

I am sorry but I do not understand the question.

Did Mr. Corrigan envisage that if C3 gave the go-ahead that he would be travelling to the North to assist in the interview?

Mr. Corrigan

I fully expected that Superintendent Courtney and I would be going.

I just wish to clarify that. I thought Mr. Corrigan gave the impression previously that he did not envisage a situation where he would be assisting in any way in interviews or travelling to the North. He appeared to suggest——

Mr. Corrigan

I am sorry if I did.

To get it clear——

Mr. Corrigan should be allowed to clarify the matter.

Mr. Corrigan

In view of the information we had received which was submitted to C3, I expected that in the natural order of things we would be going up to have this matter finalised. I did not envisage anyone else being involved. I was not aware that anyone else had information which would have necessitated them going either to Glasgow, Northern Ireland or anywhere else. As far as I was concerned, Superintendent Courtney and I were the two members who were dealing with the information. We were not aware it had been passed to anyone else.

Mr. Corrigan and Superintendent Courtney had been pursuing the investigation across the Border. What role did Mr.Corrigan envisage once he had crossed the Border if they were given the go-ahead by C3?

Mr. Corrigan

As I explained to the sub-committee, we would have made arrangements to have the suspects arrested and interviewed by the RUC, which would make their own local arrangements. We would inform them of our impending visit. We would then be in possession of all the relevant facts by way of terrain, sequence of events, etc., not in regard to the crime. In other words, in simple terms, that we could fill them in on the nitty-gritty of the circumstances of the case.

Did Mr. Corrigan envisage that he and Superintendent Courtney would not participate in or observe the interviews but they would travel to the North, meet the interrogating officers in Belfast and supply them with any information they might need for the interrogation?

Mr. Corrigan

Absolutely. That is correct.

I wish to clarify a reply to an earlier question in regard to Superintendent Courtney, who was the person who tried to contact C3. He said he spoke to Sergeant Dan Boyle. Did he ever confide in Mr. Corrigan what he was told by his contact in C3?

Mr. Corrigan

He did because I pressed him.

What did he say?

Mr. Corrigan

When I pressed him to phone C3 again, first of all he said it was not being proceeded with and, when I asked why, he said Mr. Wren, who was then in charge of C3, had said that it was not going ahead because if the four suspects were interviewed the RUC, as it was then known, would be looking for reciprocal arrangements with four IRA persons to be extradited North and that it was not going ahead for that reason. He usually dealt with Chief Superintendent Michael Fitzgerald, may the Lord have mercy on the man. If the chief superintendent was not available for some reason then Dan Boyle was the liaison officer between us and C3. This was our conduit for the transmission of any information or intelligence.

Mr. Corrigan said there were a number of telephone calls. Does that mean that Mr. Courtney was trying to get Chief Superintendent Fitzgerald to pursue the matter?

Mr. Corrigan

I do not know. All I can say is that he telephoned on a number of occasions. He was trying to reach Chief Superintendent Fitzgerald. I was in contact with him on a daily basis. I asked him every second or third day why there was no authorisation forthcoming. It had happened before. I could not see any logic in it not being pursued in view of the serious and urgent nature of the matter.

Did he convey to Mr.Corrigan that Dan Boyle had told him that Mr. Wren had told him to convey the message that there would be no further investigation because there would have to be similar reciprocal arrangements with the RUC?

Mr. Corrigan

Yes. I do not remember the exact words. We were seeking permission to travel to the North.

Permission to travel to the North——

Mr. Corrigan

What happened after that would unfold in the natural order of things.

Was it the permission to travel to the North that was refused?

Mr. Corrigan

Yes, it was not forthcoming.

Was that because Mr. Wren had told Mr. Boyle to inform Mr. Courtney that reciprocal arrangements would have to be made with the RUC?

Mr. Corrigan

Yes, they would be looking for four people to be extradited in lieu of the four who would be extradited.

They mentioned four.

Mr. Corrigan

Yes, four.

I want to try to clear this up. Mr. Corrigan said that all terrorist or subversive organisations were among the suspects at the time. Which organisation was most active in the area?

Mr. Corrigan

It would have been the Provisional IRA. There were different elements of the IRA, such as the INLA.

Is it reasonable to accept that the most active terrorist organisation in the area at the time would have been suspected in any murder?

Mr. Corrigan

It would be in the category of suspects. In an investigation, one must keep an open mind and persons or organisations are eliminated.

Despite the fact that none of the Ludlow family had anything whatsoever to do with the IRA.

Mr. Corrigan

Absolutely.

There was a suggestion that the fact that they had nothing to do with the IRA does not necessarily exclude its members as suspects.

Mr. Corrigan

No, it does not.

It has been suggested that Mr. Ludlow might have accidentally stumbled across some sensitive data. It was, therefore, quite logical for the Garda to think that IRA members were suspects, considering that they were very active in the area at the time.

Mr. Corrigan

That was logical, since it happened regarding people who came across something in that terrain. A man named Tom Oliver was murdered by the IRA within a mile or two of that place. It was alleged at the time — in the 1990s — that he may have been in the category that the Deputy has described.

I have two brief questions. Mr. Corrigan mentioned that he had asked Superintendent Courtney to telephone C3.

Mr. Corrigan

That is correct.

What was Mr. Corrigan's perception of C3's role regarding his job?

Mr. Corrigan

Clearly, we could not proceed to Northern Ireland without having authorisation from C3 — the only part of the Garda Síochána that could issue such an instruction.

This is not my second question but rather a follow-up to the first. Mr.Corrigan went to Belfast on 15 February regarding the Dundalk bombings. Did he have the specific authorisation of C3 to do so and through whom was that channelled?

Mr. Corrigan

I cannot say. It would have concerned the area of collating or confirming intelligence, something that often happened with the RUC. Going up to interview people would be a totally different matter. I should qualify that by saying "having them interviewed". I wanted information on the Dundalk bombing and asked Superintendent Courtney to accompany me.

This is my second question. Mr. Corrigan mentioned that when he travelled north there was a feeling of being a little more vulnerable. As Detective Sergeant in Dundalk, am I right to assume that at all times Mr.Corrigan would have carried a revolver with him?

Mr. Corrigan

Yes, but not when travelling north.

Did that contribute to a reduced sense of security?

Mr. Corrigan

Certainly, it would have added to anyone's vulnerability. My point was that anyone stationed in Dundalk dealing with subversives would be marked. It was inadvisable to travel during those violent times in our country's history.

With regard to the structure in the Dundalk area, to whom did Mr. Corrigan report, to whom did that person report and so on?

Mr. Corrigan

Before the situation, I reported to C3. I was posted to Dundalk in 1975 and at that stage there was no Border superintendent. I was in overall charge of all detectives in the area and I reported directly to C3 to Chief Superintendent Michael Fitzgerald. Mr. Ainsworth came into C3 as assistant commissioner and I reported to him. In 1976, a Border superintendent was appointed. Activity was so frantic at that time that the authorities decided to send such a person to oversee what was happening.

Therefore, Mr. Corrigan did not report to the superintendent at Dundalk.

Mr. Corrigan

No. I had very little contact with the district officer. It was always through the Border superintendent and he, in turn, would communicate. As I said, C3 was practically the only conduit through which we dealt.

Mr. Corrigan obviously speaks very highly of Chief Superintendent Michael Fitzgerald. They must have had a good relationship.

Mr. Corrigan

Absolutely. He was an incredibly conscientious man who did tremendous work investigating subversion. He was approachable at any hour of the day or night. I could ring him at his home with any serious problem. That is how bad it was; it was 24-seven.

After Chief Superintendent Courtney came to Mr. Corrigan and told him that the deal was off, he must have been very disappointed.

Mr. Corrigan

Absolutely.

Did Mr. Corrigan discuss his disappointment with his colleague Michael Fitzgerald at any time? Did he seek a reason or ask him why it had happened?

Mr. Corrigan

I was so frustrated and annoyed that I did not want to discuss it with anyone. I felt very let down after having put in so much effort. We could not pursue the case and I was not aware that anyone else had any information in that regard.

Did Mr. Corrigan discuss it with any of his superior officers?

Mr. Corrigan

No, absolutely not. Superintendent Courtney was one of the finest officers with whom it has been my privilege to serve and was at the time and for years before and since the most high profile officer in the Garda Síochána and served with distinction.

I have another question. Mr.Corrigan seems to have developed a working relationship with Chief Superintendent Bill Mooney on the basis that the former was the person responsible for detective work on the southern side of the Border, while the latter held that responsibility on the northern side. What was the nature of that relationship and how often did they meet? Did they talk to each other or communicate by telephone?

Mr. Corrigan

Not really. Superintendent Courtney had a relationship too but to develop the question a little further I wish to advise the committee of this. At that time, Chief Superintendent Mooney would have been with the RUC's criminal investigation department, CID, and investigated crimes including murder. They had a separate entity, which was, as we all know, Special Branch. As I understood it, Special Branch took precedence over the CID and dictated what should or should not be done, whatever connotation one puts on it. I got Superintendent Courtney to ring Mr. Mooney and arrange for us to develop the matter regarding the car used in the Dundalk bombing.

Did Mr. Corrigan introduce Chief Superintendent Courtney to Chief Superintendent Mooney?

Mr. Corrigan

No, he knew him through working on other cases. While we were there, Chief Superintendent Mooney seemed most anxious about our visit, undertaking to help us in everything. At the station, a member was able to confirm the information that I had. In the course of our visit to the station, Chief Superintendent Mooney told us that there would be no more investigation, no co-operation would be forthcoming and he left the station.

Mr. Corrigan also said that it has been found out that there was collusion. He referred to the contact he was going to see and how it was suddenly closed off to him.

Mr. Corrigan

Yes.

When Mr. Corrigan was serving there from 1976 to 1981, did he have a sense that there was collusion operating in the North of Ireland?

Mr. Corrigan

As I said, I can only relay what was my experience. I was totally unhappy in relation to the security aspects, from a personal point of view, specifically in relation to the Provisional IRA or the other organisation on the Nationalist side. I was afraid that the fact that members from Dundalk station were going to the North of Ireland would filter out to loyalist organisations because the general cry from the RUC at that stage was that we were not doing enough. That was always the cry. At a national level, the authorities in the North were pushing for what they called "hot pursuit". In other words, they wanted to chase the suspects on the Border into our jurisdiction, but that was resisted totally and completely by our Government at the time. I believe the former Minister for Justice explained that to the committee. That was the attitude at the time. I was always conscious of a member from Dundalk station going up to interview anybody in the North in those circumstances, given the many problems that could arise in terms of a member's personal safety.

I am sure we will return to the Dundalk bombing because it is another case in which Mr. Justice Barron is examining matters.

Mr. Corrigan

That is right.

I have one brief question. The family is anxious to know the reason the investigation closed down after 21 days in 1976.

Mr. Corrigan

It did not actually close down. The emphasis on it might have closed in terms of the heavy concentration of personnel involved in it, but I would not agree that it closed down. There were different inquiries to be made in different areas and different people to be interviewed.

It appears to the family that the investigation was closed after that very brief period of 21 days.

Mr. Corrigan

I cannot speak for the family, but I can assure the Deputy that it continued although, as I explained, certainly not with the same emphasis as the initial investigation. In such matters a timeframe of a month or two months for the initial investigation is commonplace for most murders because personnel from headquarters and investigators are taken away to deal with other crimes.

Did a team continue to work on the investigation into this murder after that period?

Mr. Corrigan

Yes.

Did it work on it exclusively or as part of a number of other cases?

Mr. Corrigan

No, it did so as part of general inquiries. It would have been the remit of those dealing with crime investigation in Dundalk.

I thank Mr. Corrigan for that.

Mr. Corrigan

Before I go I wish the committee the very best in its endeavours to bring this sad episode to a conclusion. I assure the Ludlow family that everything possible was done on their behalf to bring this matter to a successful conclusion. If that was not achieved, it was due to factors outside my control that did not enable us to finalise the matter to my personal satisfaction.

I thank Mr. Corrigan for that. I know he came here on a voluntary basis. He has been of good service to us and what he has said has been very helpful and useful.

Mr. Corrigan

I thank the Chairman.

We will meet again on Thursday, 16 February, when Mr. Justice Barron will be our witness.

The sub-committee adjourned at 12.55 p.m. until 10 a.m. on Thursday, 16 February 2006.

Barr
Roinn