Mr. John Barrett:

We were now into September and a number of things were concerning me about the pace at which matters were being realised, dealt with, considered, whatever the case may be, so I brought it to Mr. Dunne's attention. To be honest, at the very beginning of this entire process I had every faith that Mr. Dunne was of like mind about where this thing was going, so it was not in any way creating a scenario of four legs good, two legs bad, and I am right and you are wrong.

I was saying to Mr. Cyril Dunne that there were some serious guidelines laid down by the Fennelly report that we needed to apply to this particular issue arising in the college. It all surrounded the issue of effective communication. We heard Mr. Howard talk earlier about the September meeting when there was an item under any other business, AOB, that made reference to the college. Despite the fact that my report had been sitting there since 6 July, it was an AOB oral delivery and it clearly did not catch the imagination of the chairman. That was his testimony earlier. From 27 July - when Mr. Dunne had said it in that meeting in the college with the Commissioner, the acting deputies and himself - I became conscious that the material I had prepared for 6 July had not been given to the audit committee. My antennae were tweaking a little bit as to why that had not happened. By September, when I had this meeting with Mr. Dunne, I called him out and said that the Fennelly report should be read. The report talks of the need for effective communication and how the section 41 issue should be interpreted. I was conscious of the fact that on 24 July, Mr. Ken Ruane had written a letter saying that it was a section 41 matter and this was the advice over which privilege was being claimed. I know that because I sat in on the meeting of 27 July where these issues were discussed.

By September I was beginning to feel concern that we were not making the kind of progress that we should. That is the basis of the lengthy note, which I believe speaks for itself - res ipsa loquitur.It is very clear in terms of my concerns to Mr. Dunne. I went to him, as my boss, and said that there are some issues that need to be addressed. That is the genesis and the theme of the whole thing. I draw members' attention to my note to Mr. Cyril Dunne, specifically to the chapter heading Interim Report of Justice Fennelly:

Having carefully read and re read the Interim Report of the Fennelly Commission, I am very much clearer on the approach required in dealing with serious issues which may fall within the terms of section 41 of the Garda Síochána Act 2005. I am satisfied that the matters which first came to my attention in June from Mr. McGee’s report and subsequently, need to be very carefully and forensically investigated and do, on a prudential basis fall within the terms of [section] 41(1)(b) and (c) in particular and as advised by HOLA [head of legal affairs]. Justice Fennelly makes clear that a [section] 41 is to be used for matters for which the Commissioner judges to be ‘significant’.

I go on to explain why I believe these matters are significant.