Dáil Éireann Debate, Tuesday - 7 July 2015
4. Deputy Niall Collins asked the Minister for Justice and Equality the actions she has taken in view of the suicide of a serving member of An Garda Síochána; the steps taken to ensure the independence and integrity of the investigation; the timeframe for the completion of any investigation; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [27361/15]
Amharc ar fhreagraI have tabled this question following the very tragic death of Sergeant Michael Galvin. I would like to express my condolences to his wife Colette and his family. We should also bear in mind that the death of Ms Sheena Stewart is linked to this tragedy. I would like to pass on my condolences to her family too. I ask the Minister to outline the steps she has taken to ensure the independence and integrity of the investigation into the death of Sergeant Galvin at Ballyshannon Garda station. Could she also outline the timeframe for the completion of that investigation?
The Deputy has referred to the tragic death of a serving Garda member in County Donegal on 28 May 2015. Before I deal with the substance of his question, I would like to join him in expressing my deepest sympathies to the family, friends and many colleagues of the late Garda member, who have been so traumatised by this tragic death. Like the Deputy, I think it is important that I should not exclude from the expression of sympathy the family and friends of the young woman who tragically lost her life in a road traffic incident on 1 January 2015.
As Members know, the Garda member in question had been the subject of an investigation by the Garda Síochána Ombudsman Commission into matters relating to Garda contact with a member of the public shortly before her death in the fatal road traffic incident. As a result of concerns raised following the death of the Garda member and following consultation with the Garda Síochána Ombudsman Commission, which I am bound to do under the legislation, I decided to use the power available to me under the Garda Síochána Act 2005 to initiate an inquiry by an independent judicial figure into the conduct of the GSOC investigation.
I used section 109 of the Garda Síochána Act 2005 for the first time. I wrote to the Chief Justice requesting her to invite a judge of the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeal or the High Court to conduct the inquiry. The Chief Justice invited Mr. Justice Frank Clarke of the Supreme Court to conduct the inquiry and he has accepted the invitation. I welcome that. The inquiry will examine the conduct of designated officers of the Garda Síochána Ombudsman Commission in respect of its investigation into the contact which members of the Garda Síochána had with a person on 1 January 2015 prior to her death in a tragic road traffic incident. Section 109 allows the judge to conduct the inquiry in the manner he thinks proper and he has full judicial powers in doing so, including the power, if necessary, to enforce the attendance of witnesses or to compel the production of records.
Obviously, I have had no involvement with that inquiry. It is completely independent. The Supreme Court judge operates under the guidelines and will conduct the inquiry as he sees fit. I am anxious to give him the time required to carry out the inquiry but, given the circumstances, I expect that the result of the inquiry should be available to me in the short to medium term.
I and my party welcome the fact that Mr. Justice Frank Clarke has been appointed to carry out an independent judicial inquiry into this. It is appropriate following the call from the Association of Garda Sergeants and Inspectors, AGSI, for such an inquiry.
A GSOC spokesman stated at the time that it often engaged in peer review, whereby it got sister organisations from outside the jurisdiction to peer review some of its case work. Is that still happening in respect of this case and others? If so, will the Minister outline how many peer reviews have happened and what was their outcome?
Also, GSOC says that Sergeant Galvin was cleared as part of its investigation, yet the file had to go to the Director of Public Prosecutions, DPP, for the DPP to make the ultimate decision in that regard. However, that was not communicated to Sergeant Galvin and the tragedy occurred. Has the Minister asked GSOC, or has GSOC said, if any new protocols have been put in place to prevent something like this from happening again?
The Deputy's first question was about peer review. Once this tragic death occurred and the case came under scrutiny, GSOC immediately initiated a peer review and had taken the first steps in that. That was the right thing to do. The peer review system regarding Garda complaints is well established, whereby somebody from outside GSOC staff and from another system is brought in to conduct an analysis. That was an excellent first step in terms of GSOC's response to the situation. I met with GSOC, as I am obliged to do under the legislation. My decision at that point was that this was not enough and that section 109 should be used, so the peer review does not continue as a result. Peer review has been used by GSOC at different times, but I do not have the number of times with me.
The Deputy's second question was about protocols and referring cases. GSOC has a practice of referring cases where a death has occurred to the DPP before it refers back to the people who have been under investigation. Obviously there were particular circumstances in this case.
GSOC made that fact public as a result of the tragic circumstances. That has been its approach, however, because while it may believe no further action is needed, it is still required to forward the case file to the Director of Public Prosecutions for its view.
People understand that the Director of Public Prosecutions makes the final call in this type of case. Should the Garda Síochána Ombudsman Commission not establish a protocol providing that, in cases in which it submits a file to the DPP making a recommendation that there is no case to answer, as occurred in the case of Sergeant Galvin, its decision will be immediately communicated to the person who was under investigation? This would at least give the person comfort in the knowledge that the investigating body was satisfied with the outcome of the investigation. At the same time, it is acknowledged that it is a matter for the Director of Public Prosecutions to make the formal decision on the case.
Arising from the tragic case of Sergeant Galvin, has a three-way discussion taken place between the Minister, the Garda Síochána Ombudsman Commission and An Garda Síochána given the history of friction between GSOC and the Garda? While the relationship between these bodies had been improving, this case will have set back recent progress. In the interest of promoting confidence in the Garda and GSOC, the working relationship needs to be as good as possible.
I welcome the Deputy's point regarding the importance of the relationship between the Garda Síochána and Garda Síochána Ombudsman Commission. Both sides have work to do regarding complaints, and they must work together.
On the Deputy's question concerning the point at which persons under investigation should be informed of the outcome of the investigation, this is a complex issue. As it arises in the case we are discussing, I would prefer to leave any further comment on the matter to the inquiry being conducted by the Supreme Court judge. It may well be one of the issues addressed in the report of the inquiry, although I do not know one way or another whether that is the case. As it is a possibility, I will await the findings of the report.
The Garda Síochána Ombudsman Commission clearly took a particular approach to this issue. In cases involving a death, GSOC prefers to await the decision of the Director of Public Prosecutions before giving the information to a person under investigation, given the possibility that the DPP will arrive at a different decision.
