Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Seanad Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 19 Jul 1967

Vol. 63 No. 10

Death of Person in Garda Custody: Motion.

I move:

That it is expedient that a tribunal be established for inquiring into a definite matter of urgent public importance, that is to say, the facts and circumstances surrounding the death in Garda custody on 30th May, 1967 of Liam O'Mahony.

Senators will be aware that since the conclusion of the Coroner's inquest on 19th June there has been an agitation for a formal inquiry into the circumstances surrounding the tragic death of Mr. Liam O'Mahony. They will also be aware that I was not satisfied that the agitation was bona fide and representative of public opinion and that I continued in my refusal, up to 11th July, when I reached the conclusion that a state of public uneasiness was being created and that wrong conclusions might be drawn if a judicial inquiry were not set up.

At the outset, I want to emphasise that a sworn public inquiry into the death in question has already taken place. I refer, of course, to the coroner's inquest. I am entirely satisfied that all the available evidence was presented at the inquest and that it was in addition, presented to the solicitor for the next-of-kin six days before the proceedings of the inquest commenced. The unanimous verdict, of the jury of ten, was that there was not sufficient evidence to indicate how and where the injuries from which Mr. O'Mahony died were received. Nothing in the Coroners Act or in the procedure followed at the inquest restricted the jury in the slightest degree in reaching their verdict. The coroner has stated this categorically in a letter to my Department.

Criticism has been made in some quarters because the members of the jury were selected by the Garda for their good character and intelligence rather than picked at random. I should like to reject decisively the implication of that criticism, namely, that the jury might have been biassed or at least was intended by the Garda to be biassed. When selecting the members of a coroner's jury the Garda have to be selective, in the sense that some people are clearly unsuitable, and the only thing unusual about the selection in this case was that the Garda authorities issued an instruction that particular care should be taken to ensure that the persons selected were beyond reproach in character and of good intelligence. The Garda selection is, in any case, not final and the coroner can always reject any juror of his own volition or as a result of a challenge. The coroner has told me that he was quite satisfied that it was a perfectly unbiassed jury and, moreover, that he considered the verdict brought in by them to have been the only possible one on the evidence.

Up to now, no new evidence has come to light that would be likely in any way to clarify how or where or when the deceased met with his injuries. Garda have, however, continued actively their investigation and they have even sent a Garda officer specially to England to take a further statement from one witness who, it was conjectured, might have been able to amplify an earlier statement.

I propose that the tribunal will consist of three members of the judiciary, and Mr. Justice O'Brien Fitzgerald, Mr. Justice Murnaghan and Judge Conroy have consented to act. Their terms of reference, as on the Order Paper, will be to investigate the facts and circumstances surrounding the death.

I hope sincerely that anybody who may have, or thinks he has, material evidence to offer will make it available to the tribunal.

We welcome the introduction of this measure giving effect to what was a strong public desire that more investigation should be held into the circumstances of this particular tragedy. I regret that the Minister should use the word "agitation" in regard to the public unease that existed in relation to this unfortunate happening. It emphasises that for some purposes, for good or ill, he is responding to the pressures of agitators, whereas if the public representatives and the public press through editorials or otherwise respond to what is a strongly held public feeling they are merely performing their duties as such.

Consequently, we welcome the change of mind and of attitude on the part of the Minister in this regard. It could well be emulated by some of his colleagues, but in this particular instance it would have been far better if the course now adopted had been taken at an earlier stage. We hope that the full and complete result of this inquiry will bring to light facts that may not have hitherto been brought to the forefront. At any rate, it should help to dispel the serious doubt that exists about the circumstances in which this tragedy occurred.

The Minister has strangely referred to the fact that the coroner's jury were unable to ascertain how and where this accident took place, an all-important fact which has not yet been resolved and seemingly the tribunal, which we completely endorse, are now charged with a more complete investigation and, we hope, with a result that will clear away the whole atmosphere of disquiet this tragedy has given rise to. We hope the result of the tribunal will have that effect.

We in the Labour Party welcome the decision of the Minister to set up this inquiry. I regret, however, that it is a rather belated decision to set it up. When this incident happened the Minister certainly gave the impression the matter would be fully investigated. I thought when, following the inquest, he announced he would not pursue the matter further or have a public inquiry, that there was some change about in his attitude. I regret this from two aspects. I am afraid we are getting to a situation now that the impression is being created that the gardaí are under heavy criticism or attack from the ordinary public, and the Minister is the Sir Galahad defending the gardaí.

All of us here know the Garda are an excellent body of men and women but we know equally that in any excellent body like this you can have a few blackguards. I suppose most of us on occasions have come up against such people but that does not take in any way from our respect for or support of the Garda as a peace-keeping force in this country. The fact of the matter here is that this man died while in custody. That very fact necessitates the most searching inquiry not alone to establish the facts but to ease the public mind and keep up the public's good opinion of the Garda as a peace-keeping force. The unfortunate man who died was, as far as I know, an inoffensive, quiet chap. I went to school with him. I knew him in my youth. I knew his family. I had not seen him for very many years but anything I know of him, or have heard of him, would certainly not give me the impression that this would be a chap to be easily roughed up by any garda.

It is unfortunate we now have a situation in which the gardaí feel they are under public criticism. I do not think the people who advocate a most searching inquiry into this are against the gardaí or critical of them as a peace-keeping force but we all know you can have blackguards in any force, in any organisation. It is right and proper that when such a thing as this happens a most searching inquiry should be held.

I welcome the decision to set up this inquiry even though, as I said at the beginning, I think the Minister's decision is a bit belated. It would have been far better, in his interests, in the interest of the gardaí and everybody concerned, that the inquiry should have taken place, or that the decision to have the inquiry should have been made without this delay, pressure and criticism which has come about since the coroner's inquest.

I also welcome the decision of the Minister to have this matter re-opened. Reading the newspapers, any person not immediately associated with the matters involved got the impression there was something mysterious here. Then, to cap it all, the coffin was opened and a further inspection of the corpse carried out. There was a verdict given, a unanimous verdict by the jury, but was it a satisfactory one? The verdict was that there was not sufficient evidence to indicate how and where the injuries were received. It is very difficult to understand a verdict such as that. It is very rare that a jury is not able to reach a definite, specific and satisfactory decision. I think it will be agreed that it was, from the public point of view, or from the point of view of publicity this case got, a very unsatisfactory decision. There was uneasiness created in the public mind; they felt there ought to be a verdict; there ought to be a decision here. Although the Minister originally refused to reopen this case, he mentioned that the newspapers and the publicity this matter got had forced him to change his opinion. Apart from what we read in the newspapers, there was in the public mind, too, a feeling that there was no satisfactory or definite verdict in this case and that it should be reexamined. Nobody knows yet—and perhaps nobody will know—how this matter happened, but there has been a feeling in the public mind that not sufficient effort was made to find out the circumstances under which these injuries were sustained and from which the injured man died.

Of course, it certainly brought to light one weakness which was there and, I believe, has been remedied since. It has ensured that medical attention will be available to persons under arrest or detained in police barracks. If this case did anything, at least it has done that. There is an obligation now to ensure that the person arrested is entitled to receive medical attention, that a doctor should be called if the gardaí consider such action is in any way justified, however remote.

In fairness to everybody and, indeed, in fairness to the man under arrest a visit from a doctor would certainly be helpful. Indeed, it might have been helpful in this particular case. If this man had received medical attention, even if a doctor had been called in having regard to the condition in which the gardaí found him, it might have saved the man's life. Certainly it would have put a different look on the kind of publicity and the feeling that has been created as a result of this man's death.

I have just one comment. Now that the decision has been made to hold an inquiry in this matter I think we would all agree that it is an opportune time for us to indulge in what one might call a discreet silence pending the decision of the tribunal. May I say that Senator Rooney's comments, particularly his dissatisfaction with the nature of the coroner's verdict, may be a matter of personal feeling for him, but I think it is quite inopportune and most improper at this time for anyone to voice personal feelings of that sort?

I hope the truth will come out in this particular inquiry whatever it may be. I also feel, apart from the actual case itself, that it will give an opportunity to the Minister to examine the whole question of coroners' courts and how far exactly the coroners——

I think that already the debate has been——

I am referring to the Minister's speech in which this question of the coroner's verdict is discussed.

The proceedings in the Dáil are not quite in order here.

We are not on another planet yet. What I want to get at here so far as the coroner's court and the jury are concerned, is the bringing in of a verdict. It is a fact that in many instances juries are precluded by the coroners in various parts of the country from making recommendations and that is due to the present state of the law. I gather that in this instance the jury stated that they had not sufficient evidence before them to allow them to reach a verdict as to how this man died. In other parts of the country there have been cases where deaths are investigated at a coroner's inquest. I know myself that coroners have prevented evidence from being taken that would establish the cause of death. In that regard I think that this is something that this inquiry should clarify because the jury's verdict must be investigated by the judicial commission that is set up.

The whole idea at present seems to be that a jury can be selected by the Garda Síochána on the basis of whom they consider to be the most suitable men. I gather from the legislation as it stands that a jury should be picked at random. Those are the type of things I should like to see clarified because of what I am speaking about here and which evidently the Chair in its wisdom is going to prevent me from saying, although it has a great bearing on this particular matter. I resent very much the attitude of the Chair and, therefore, I will say nothing about it.

I should like to welcome the Minister's decision but it is a pity that so much time should elapse. I think it is much better for all the parties concerned that we should have an impartial, quick decision in all such cases. Unfortunately, the trend at present seems to be that the gardaí are being moved into a position whereby they are afraid to be really on the ball. I think they are being forced to turn a blind eye to many crimes and cases. It is not really worth their while bringing in some of the people for the sentences they get and they are now not really allowed in some cases where a court——

These matters are clearly not within the scope of the motion before the House.

Apparently now the case has been made that the judges are not fulfilling their functions properly. What else is going to be relevant?

This is a good start for the Marts Bill. If you are going to start curtailing the debate now what is it going to be like next week?

Senators

Next month.

Surely if there was a wide debate in the Dáil——

The Chair is concerned with procedure in this House not with what happens in the Dáil.

Surely the Senator is entitled to pass remarks on the statement made by the Minister.

The Chair is concerned with order.

Surely order in the country is much more important.

The whole problem of Garda procedure and organisation does not arise on this motion. That must be clear to everybody.

I am thankful that the Seanad has welcomed the introduction of this motion. I feel that in view of the public unease that has been to a large extent, I must say, generated, this matter should be fully investigated and that all aspects concerning this unfortunate death should be investigated by a tribunal of complete impartiality and for that reason I chose a judge of the Supreme Court, a judge of the High Court and a judge of the Circuit Court. I am very confident that they will organise their procedures so as to ensure that every aspect of this matter will be investigated.

I should like to say that so far no evidence has come to light which was not available at the inquest. I hope if there is any other evidence outstanding that it will come to light, but this is entirely a matter for the tribunal to assess and I am certain that the fullest possible examination will be given.

I hope that the tribunal itself will sit sometime early in August in Cork.

On the issue of dilatoriness in the matter, I should like to state that the unfortunate incident happened on 30th May, which is only seven weeks ago. There has been a very thorough Garda investigation during that period. There certainly was no delay in regard to the establishment of this inquiry. As I said in the Dáil yesterday, I do not intend, as Minister for Justice, and I am certain any Minister for Justice would not support the proposition to institute a sworn inquiry at some considerable cost merely at the drop of a hat. This is a matter that has been gone into. Consideration has to be given to the whole situation in the light of the facts, and the state of public opinion. The state of public opinion, caused by the generation of comments and rumours and so on was that many people did feel that something needed to be cleared, and my frank view is let it be cleared. But I should not like the idea to get abroad that at the drop of a hat it should be incumbent on any Minister for Justice to hold a tribunal on every such matter that arises because unfortunate things happen from time to time. We must, for one thing, consider the morale of the gardaí. I am satisfied the Garda authorities in this matter behaved properly but, again, this is entirely a matter for the inquiry to investigate and I do not intend to speak on it any further.

I have given very thorough examination to all the evidence. So has the Attorney General, so has the coroner's inquest—jury and coroner—and all are satisfied no evidence has been disclosed to indicate how this man received his injuries. The Garda investigated the matter, are investigating it still. Every possible line of investigation has been followed. As late as a few days ago a member of the Garda Síochána went to London to seek possible further amplification of the evidence of a particular witness. The effort has been made and is being made.

On Senator McQuillan's point concerning the procedure in regard to the establishment of inquests and the nature of the inquiries, under section 30 of the Coroners Act, 1962, a very wide range is given to the coroner and the jury who examine how, where, when-that is the exact phraseology in the section—the death occurred. There has been criticism of the structure of the court and the procedure for calling juries. It could be changed, but it has to be remembered that the system differs from that of calling juries in criminal trials. We must have a flexible system in regard to the summoning of jurors and in regard to the whole procedure of coroners' inquests.

We have given very wide terms to this tribunal. I am sure they will investigate all the aspects mentioned in the Dáil and Seanad. I hope everything will be ventilated fully and that the public can see for themselves what the situation has been. If there are recommendations arising out of that situation I will be very glad to receive them from the tribunal and to consider them most carefully.

Have members of coroners' juries authority to question witnesses in relation to matters which members of juries believe have a bearing on the case?

A member of the jury can request the coroner to do so.

The coroner has power to say he will not allow it.

That is right.

Question put and agreed to.
Barr
Roinn