Bernard Durkan (Kildare North, Fine Gael)

I am glad to have an opportunity to contribute to this debate. The fact that an inquiry is being ordered now is to be welcomed. However, for a number of reasons it is sad that such an inquiry has had to be ordered. It is sad that the necessity for such an inquiry did not emerge until now.

The case has demonstrated weaknesses in the system. People's lives and reputations have been affected by this case together with the very foundation of our justice system. When a person either admits to or is charged with a crime he or she did not commit, it shows a serious weakness in the system that needs to be dealt with.

I compliment the Minister on ordering a commission of investigation, but it is being done at a late stage. This demonstrates that it takes a long time to convince the powers that be that something is wrong. The Minister is much closer to the action than any other Members of the House and I am sure he has had an opportunity to examine the case in all its detail. One thing is certain, namely, if someone admits to a crime and has details relating to the crime scene, only one or two actions could have happened. Either the person was given or fed the information or was led with the information, all of which is unacceptable in any criminal investigation.

I have expressed a number of reservations to the Minister privately in respect of some practices, but referring to and relying on a confession or circumstantial evidence solely to achieve a conviction is the most dangerous pursuit in any judicial department. This has been proven time out of number, not only in this jurisdiction but in several others as well. Excessive reliance on a confession means that the system is now dependent on the extent to which the person confessed voluntarily. The system then becomes reliant on the extent to which there was coercion, suggestion and said or led information, all of which contributes to an undermining of the justice system. The sad part about this miscarriage of justice is that three people have tragically passed on, one accused of committing the offence and the two victims. We do not know any more today about what happened and who the culprit or culprits were than we did the day after the offence.

Were I in the Minister's shoes I would ask serious questions about the procedures and why the system was allowed to drift along in a haphazard fashion. He may have done so already. The alleged perpetrator has also sadly passed away. It would be convenient for all and sundry to say it is over and is done and dusted. There have been similar circumstances. The Minister should be congratulated on this aspect of the matter. I gladly note that my former colleague will chair this investigation and I do not doubt that Mr. George Bermingham SC will do a good job. I hope it will not be as costly as other inquiries, that it will examine the situation, get to the root of the problem and deal with it as quickly as possible.

The inquiry must reveal a number of points, namely, the weaknesses in the system, how they occurred, the circumstances in which they occurred, the sequence of events and how it transpired that an individual admitted guilt. Anyone in the Chamber could admit to something similar if he or she were given the opportunity and the right circumstances prevailed. Suggested evidence must be cross-checked. I do not know what cross-checking took place in this case. Obviously, there was none. In the event of a confession, it is doubly important to call on all possible means of cross-checking evidence which should be able to stand up more so in the event of a confession than in any other circumstances. Too much would be left to conjecture. I hope the inquiry will bring about a conclusion but it will not provide closure as people will be hurt either way. A conclusion would be different.

Another concern I have noted in recent years is that there seems to be a long time lapse between a murder and when the crime scene is preserved and examined. It is very haphazard. In the United States of America the first ten hours after a crime is committed are supposed to be the crucial ten hours in terms of detection. The trail has gone cold afterwards. There are many reasons for this belief. I recall a number of cases in this country over recent years where full examinations of bodies did not take place until several days after the crime. This is unpardonable and under no circumstances should it be acceptable.

I strongly suggest extra staff be supplied to the State Pathologist's office to ensure that no one is put under pressure. A person should not need to travel from one extreme of the country to another day after day to be at crime scenes. It is not physically impossible. Those of us who spend much time driving through the countryside know full well what it entails. Even given the current rate of homicides, which is not a political point, all must be dealt with. Each circumstance must be examined in isolation. Adding extra staff is an urgent need. This is not a reflection on the current staff who are doing a very good job.

The need to preserve crime scenes until such time as investigations have been concluded is obvious. The initial examination should begin as quickly as possible after a crime has been discovered. It is of no use to say it will be examined tomorrow or that it will be finished in two days', a week's or three weeks' time. Now is the time. Points occur to us that do not seem to occur to those with responsibility in this area. In some cases these points are obvious.

I do not understand how superior officers could accept a case of this nature given that the confession took place. I would have presumed that questions had been asked how the confession took place and the precise circumstances surrounding it. The Minister has asked these questions but I wish to be reassured in his reply that they were asked by immediate superior officers. The chain of command is supposed to act of its own accord to the benefit of the community and with the confidence of the community and Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform. Sadly it appears that such did not occur in this situation.

The old adage that 99% of gardaí are effective in how they do their jobs is true. However, as in every profession — politics, financial services, banking, teaching, etc. — there are one or two people who do not always observe the rules. It is very unfair for those who try to do their jobs well to be blamed and tarred with the same brush as those who cut corners and take shortcuts to the detriment and credibility of the entire force. This should be pointed out to the people concerned. They might be offended by the suggestion but the fact remains that certain procedures must be observed. If not, it would not be good for the people involved, for justice or the country. It is tough and rough but that is how it is. No exceptions should be made to this general rule.

I began by saying the system did not work. It is now working belatedly at a time when questions have been raised in other areas regarding the administration of justice and policing, which is sad. If this had been an isolated case, it would have been just one matter but other issues are still being discussed or pursued relating to items of police work. This should not have occurred. Gardaí require the confidence and support of the public. Otherwise, they cannot do their jobs. To achieve this, they need to carry out their duties in such a fashion that allows members of the public to go about their business knowing they will be protected by the police force at all times.

See this speech in context