Mr. Ian Drennan:

Thank you, Chairman.

Whereas one fully respects the committee's decision not to accept a submission, the net effect of that position is that, unfortunately, the committee is not in possession of the necessary information to enable it to reach evidence and fact-based conclusions.

The seriousness of the investigative failures which occurred in the ODCE during the course of the investigation that preceded DPP v.FitzPatrick is fully acknowledged. In a statement dated 23 May 2017, the ODCE fully accepted the judicial criticism directed at it. Moreover, valuable lessons, particularly as regards risk management, have been learned.

However, in assessing whether serious failures that manifested in one investigation, which was a subset of a broader suite of investigations, which, in turn, were a subset of the ODCE's broader enforcement work, can validly be extrapolated to draw conclusions as to the ODCE's overall fitness for purpose almost ten years later or as to whether it is "an appallingly failed entity", the following considerations are of relevance.

The scale of the five investigations into Anglo Irish Bank, when taken in aggregate, was unprecedented, not merely in terms of the ODCE's history up to that point but, arguably, in the history of the State. Unfortunately, the risks associated with taking on a suite of investigations of this scale were not sufficiently appreciated at the time. As a consequence, those risks were not appropriately mitigated.

Given that the trial judge cited, as being the most fundamental error, the manner in which the ODCE went about taking witness statements from two Ernst & Young audit partners, among several matters, the following is of relevance. The statements in question were obtained during the period January 2009 to June 2012, almost ten years ago. During the period July 2010 to January 2012, approximately 60 statements were taken from other witnesses during the course of the investigation. None of those statements attracted any criticism from either the defence or the court. As is evidenced by the transcripts of the trial and other relevant documentation, much of which is included in the proposed submission and virtually all of which was ventilated in open court, the factors that contributed to the trial judge ultimately directing the jury to acquit the accused extend well beyond the failures that occurred within the ODCE. Whereas it may not fit neatly with the narrative, as evidenced by the fact that four of the five Anglo-related investigations conducted by the ODCE resulted in convictions before the courts, notwithstanding the failures that occurred in the investigation that preceded DPP v. FitzPatrick, an enormous level of high-quality investigative work was done over that period, an achievement that, unfortunately, came at a considerable human cost.

I trust the briefing material provided in advance of the meeting has been of assistance. My colleagues and I look forward to the discussion to follow. In particular, I reiterate that I am happy to discuss any aspect of DPP v. FitzPatrick, provided that any such discussion is based on the facts.