Dáil Éireann Debate, Thursday - 2 April 2015
11. Deputy Clare Daly asked the Minister for Justice and Equality the progress with the cases being evaluated under the independent review mechanism;and the reason a process that was supposed to take eight weeks has gone on for more than eight months. [13311/15]
Amharc ar fhreagraThis is the same question as Nos. 1 and 2. In her reply to those questions, the Minister referred to some of the delays in some of the cases before the panel with 65 of them before 2000 and some of them going back to 1969, as if that were some problem that could not be overcome. Yesterday, the Minister pardoned somebody who was hanged in 1941. Time is not a reason for not doing this.
My main concern is that where people have gone through procedures before, there is nothing that can be done for them. This is a significant issue as they feel the procedures were faulty and this is what the panel has been asked to examine.
I was not using the time as an excuse. I was pointing out these are complex cases that have been through many different procedures. The very point of the review mechanism is to establish if there has been, as the Deputy described it, a fault in the process used at the time such as if there were a miscarriage of justice, unacceptable behaviour, some issue not explored properly or the investigation was not completed. This is the judgment call the independent review panel is being asked to make.
We are asking for a comprehensive and professional analysis, much like we have seen in other cases where there have been detailed examinations of all the information available and a recommendation made. In the pardon to which the Deputy referred, there was an investigation, a review of all the material and a decision was taken. With the panel, junior and senior counsel will analyse the cases and examine all the actions that happened and review all the material. On the basis of that, they will decide if further action is needed. This is a completely independent legal process of analysis of the material. If extra information came in, it will be handed over to the panel, even if the case has been concluded.
We have had discussions in the House and I have made it clear that all of the written information submitted will be examined. Some of the complainants have sent in extra material and all of that is being analysed.
That has not been the case in respect of the people who have interacted with the panel. The problem is that there is no transparency or accountability. We cannot challenge the Minister unless we have direct evidence from them, which we do have. I use the example of the Shane Tuohey case. Evidence emerged of 17 CCTV footage tapes on the night Mr. Tuohey was murdered that had been missing for 17 years. A request was made that the panel would look at this. The Minister said this was a matter for the Garda when the Garda are at the heart of the problem as to why these people went to the panel. The Minister has created a huge problem. Given the soundings she is making, we will have a real problem when she starts writing to people with some of the responses.
We are the first Government to take a group of cases like these about which people have had concerns and to put a process in place to examine them in good faith. It is an independent process. All of the information that is available on each of the cases can be made available to the panel and it can seek extra information if there is some stand-out issue that has not been addressed. In the first instance, each of the particular complainants will get a response. I will start doing that after Easter. I have also asked for a summary report of the process, which I will publish.
