Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Garda Investigations.

Dáil Éireann Debate, Tuesday - 17 May 2005

Tuesday, 17 May 2005

Ceisteanna (7)

Aengus Ó Snodaigh

Ceist:

7 Aengus Ó Snodaigh asked the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform the reason for the difference between his statement of 12 April 2005 that the review of the case of the assassination of Sinn Féin Councillor Eddie Fullerton cannot be completed until the Garda receives full co-operation from the British authorities and the PSNI and subsequent denials by the PSNI and the Northern Ireland Office that they are responsible for the delay. [16362/05]

Amharc ar fhreagra

Freagraí ó Béal (3 píosaí cainte)

There is no difference between my reply to certain parliamentary questions on 12 April 2005 and the factual position on this matter vis-à-vis the British authorities. On 12 April last, I stated in this House that outstanding issues relate to the awaited results of a mutual assistance request to the British authorities and certain police-to-police inquiries with the Police Service of Northern Ireland. However, an administrative difficulty has subsequently emerged relating to the processing of the original mutual assistance request. We made the request and it was sent by registered post. Unfortunately, the request when posted was apparently mislaid on the other side of the fence, not on the Irish side. The original letter of request was forwarded by my Department by registered post on 8 December 2004 to the judicial co-operation unit at the Home Office, which acts as the central authority for such requests in respect of Britain and Northern Ireland. As no response was received, a number of reminder letters issued from my Department to that unit.

In response to these reminders, a fax message was received from the Northern Ireland Office, London, on 15 April 2005, three days after I made those remarks in the House, stating that neither that office nor the judicial co-operation unit had any record of receiving a mutual assistance letter of request in the matter. In reply, on the same day, my Department forwarded by registered post and by fax a copy of the original letter of request, together with copies of reminder letters, directly to the Northern Ireland Office, London. My Department asked that the request be executed as soon as possible.

I confirm that in a fax message received on 6 May last from the Northern Ireland Office the Assistant Chief Constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland stated that our request is under consideration. With regard to the separate police-to-police inquiries, I am informed by the Garda authorities that the results of these inquiries are still awaited. In summary, it appears that my Department's original mutual assistance request somehow, regrettably, went astray on the other side but that our resubmitted request is now under consideration by the British authorities. The separate police-to-police inquiries remain outstanding.

As I previously stated, no final conclusions can be made about the inquiry until such time as the British and Northern Ireland authorities' responses are received, evaluated and acted upon, as appropriate, by the Garda Síochána.

That clarifies some of the matters I wished to raise. It is strange that on the same day the Minister got the confirmation, 15 April, an article appeared in the Irish Independent stating that the PSNI had not received that request. When was a request made prior to that? Was a request for help made to the British authorities at the time of the assassination in 1991, in April 2002 when the family again called on the Donegal gardaí for a proper investigation or in June 2003 when the inquiry began again? Was the request outlined by the Minister the only one made? What is the timeframe for the British authorities to respond to the most recent request? Will we have to wait for as long as we did in the case of the Dublin and Monaghan bombings and then get a negative response? Will the Minister publish the interim report if the additional information is not available from the British authorities? In a previous reply the Minister said he will not publish the final report. What are the reasons for that?

I do not intend to publish the interim Garda report which I received some weeks ago or the final results of the Garda investigation. However, I have undertaken to contact the Fullerton family's solicitors with a full response to their concerns, including action I deem appropriate or necessary by way of further investigation. I reject categorically suggestions, one of which was made in public, that I sought to misrepresent anybody in my reply to a debate on the Adjournment of the House on 13 April 2005. In that reply I first confirmed that the Garda authorities had interviewed the person characterised as a key witness by the Fullerton family solicitors, despite occasional claims to the contrary and, second, I informed the House that person could no longer stand over the statement he made to the Fullerton family's solicitors and, instead, had made a new statement to the Garda review team. A number of discrepancies were identified between the person's statement to the Fullerton family's solicitors and his responses to the Garda review team. In particular, the review team noted that in his original statement to the RUC on 30 May 1991, the person made no reference to the fact that he had a meeting with RUC and Garda officers. These are statements of fact, nothing more and nothing less.

Barr
Roinn