Independent Review Mechanism

Dáil Éireann Debate, Wednesday - 31 May 2017

Wednesday, 31 May 2017

Ceisteanna (113, 114, 115)

John Brassil

Ceist:

113. Deputy John Brassil asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Justice and Equality when her attention was drawn to a matter (details supplied); and if she will make a statement on the matter. [26212/17]

John Brassil

Ceist:

114. Deputy John Brassil asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Justice and Equality if she will address a matter (details supplied); and if she will make a statement on the matter. [26213/17]

John Brassil

Ceist:

115. Deputy John Brassil asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Justice and Equality if she will address a matter (details supplied); and if she will make a statement on the matter. [26214/17]

Freagraí scríofa

Tánaiste and Minister for Justice and Equality

I propose to take Questions Nos. 113 to 115, inclusive, together.

The incident involving the person to whom the Deputy refers in his question dates back to 1989. It has been the subject of correspondence with successive Ministers for Justice going back over a considerable period of time, including legal correspondence. It has also been the subject of many Questions over that period.

I am informed by the Garda Authorities that the incident in question was the subject of a thorough investigation at the time. The Deputy will appreciate, of course, that any decisions in respect of prosecutions are a matter solely for the Director of Public Prosecutions, who acts independently in accordance with the law.

Complaints were made previously by the person to whom the Deputy refers to the Garda Síochána Complaints Board which investigated the matters raised and found no evidence of an offence or breach of discipline on the part of the Garda members concerned.

This case was also among those reviewed as part of the Independent Review Mechanism established by the Government in May 2014 to consider certain complaints of Garda misconduct referred to the Taoiseach and the Minister for Justice and Equality. An independent panel consisting of two senior counsel and five junior counsel was established for that purpose. To ensure that the independence of the review process was preserved, I appointed a retired High Court Judge, Mr. Justice Roderick Murphy, to oversee the preparation of summaries and recommendations in the notification letters of the outcome of the process. His role was to independently vouch for the fact that the summaries of conclusions and the reasoning behind them were a fair reflection of the advice which has been made available to my Department by the Panel.

It was open to the independent counsel of the Independent Review Mechanism to make any recommendation that they saw fit. Having examined this particular case the recommendation was that there was no further action to be taken by me. I understand that some matters which the Deputy raises were a part of that examination. The independent counsel's recommendation was accepted and the reasons for this conclusion were communicated to the person referred to by the Deputy in November 2015.