Mr. Mark Kelly:

The Deputy has raised three different issues, including the satisfaction or dissatisfaction experienced by families. Mr. Finucane referred earlier to the Ramseyer case, which ended up in the Supreme Court simply because the family was not satisfied with the information they were given. Our experience from contact with families, including in some of the high profile cases that rumbled on for years, was that sometimes the underlying reality was that an investigation was being conducted as expeditiously as could be reasonably expected because it was a complex investigation. The problem that arose was around communication. Often, because people were not kept informed, they became extremely distressed, and understandably so, and formed all sorts of theories about what might or might not have happened to their loved one in custody, which were in fact unfounded and, ultimately, were found to be unfounded. Irrespective of future legal reform, there is need for An Garda Síochána and its investigative agencies to think through how they can keep families better informed about the investigative process.

In regard to the actions that are available to next of kin who are actively dissatisfied and may have reason to be dissatisfied with the quality of an investigation, the current situation is flagrantly not in accordance with Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Let us take a recent case that has been very troubling for a number of people, the tragic death of Savita Halappanavar. It is very clear that her widower is extremely dissatisfied with the action that has been taken to investigate her death and to vindicate his rights. A plethora of steps have been already taken, including a HSE clinical review and a HIQA review. Civil proceedings and so on are also under way. Yet, Mr. Halappanavar is not, in his own words, finding within our current system an effective means of vindicating his rights. My contention would be that even the civil proceedings that are currently active are extremely unlikely to do that. Essentially, where ever a family member or next-of-kin turns - Mr. Finucane may have further views on this - they are likely to find that avenues of potential redress are closed off to them. The point made by Dr. Mavronicola is also extremely important.

We not only need to look at Articles 1 and 2 but also at Article 13 of the European Convention on Human Rights on the right to an effective remedy. Article 13 is usually read together with other substantive articles. When one looks at the two together in this context, it is our view that first, where next of kin are concerned, there is not currently a process that is compliant with Article 2 and, second, nor is there a means for them to have effective remedy in that context as required by Article 13. It is a serious situation.

The Deputy's last question raises an issue on which the entire session could probably be spent, namely, what should replace the current framework? Section 30 of the 1962 Act is a difficulty as it blocks the attribution of responsibility. There is the Coroners Bill 2007, which was an effort to put in place a more modern framework for coronial investigations. It has been languishing on the Order Paper for many years now. It needs to be looked at again because in the meantime, as Mr. Finucane was saying, there have been other developments in Strasbourg jurisprudence and as a result of supreme court cases in neighbouring jurisdictions. That would be a good starting point.

The Deputy is absolutely right that whatever procedural obligations there are in terms of the rights of the next of kin, there are also procedural obligations of fairness in respect of the attribution of responsibility to particular, named police officers, doctors or obstetricians. It is absolutely essential that any reform that is brought forward also strikes an appropriate balance in that area. It is a very technical matter which might be best approached in the framework of draft legislation.