Liz McManus (Wicklow, Labour)

On 22 May 2003, a young woman, Georgina Eager, was brutally murdered in Dublin. Her family was devastated by the loss of a lovely and gentle daughter and sister. Their anguish was compounded by an ordeal resulting from a decision by the Irish authorities to let the case be heard in a British court. For the first time, a person accused of such a crime committed in Ireland did not have his extradition sought by the Irish Director of Public Prosecutions to stand trial here. It was an unprecedented and, for the family, inexplicable decision.

To this day, they have received no clear explanation why the decision was made. I raised this matter by way of a parliamentary question and got no explanation either. The family was eventually advised to contact the DPP's office. When they did so, their calls were not returned. Finally, an approach was made by the family to the Garda Síochána and a letter issued from the DPP on 14 September. The DPP's explanation is in direct conflict with the statement made to the family by the British police who expressed both frustration and puzzlement with the Irish authorities for failing to seek the extradition of the accused.

In January 2005, the accused began a fitness-to-plead challenge, which was heard in London. One family member attended court, but there was no Garda or legal presence representing the Irish State at that hearing. The DPP stated in his letter that he was satisfied with the efficient way in which the murder case had been handled by the Crown Prosecution Service and so did the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Deputy McDowell. However, how do they know to make that judgment when they received no legal advice? The DPP and the Minister would no doubt claim that the verdict proves that they were right, but that is disingenuous. If the next time a family is put in this position and the verdict goes against them, what will the Minister and DPP say?

The trial began on 8 August 2005 and the family travelled to London at its own expense and without support. It sought to have a legal representative of the Irish State present in the court, but that was denied. It sought assistance for help with the costs. That too was denied, in stark contrast to the decision by the Irish Government to send a legal representative to the inquest into the deaths of three Irish people in Gibraltar and to have diplomatic representation at the trial of the Columbia Three, together with the loan of money for bail. In the case of the Eager family, however, no support was provided. Any diplomatic presence in the court was a result of my independent representations. With the exception of help given by the Garda, it is shameful that members of an Irish family forced to depend on British justice found themselves effectively abandoned by their own State.

After intense lobbying we were informed that funds were available through the Criminal Injuries Compensation Tribunal Board. The circumstance of the trial, however, had no bearing on eligibility for this funding. Anyway the funds have run out so it will be next year before the family has a chance of getting anything.

It is bad enough for a family to have to travel abroad for a trial of this nature without consular or legal assistance from the State, but what marks this case was that the Irish authorities had an option to hear the case in Ireland and chose not to. The family have three different accounts about why that choice was made, one from the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, one from the DPP and one from the British police. Is it not time that they were told the truth?

See this speech in context