Jim O'Keeffe (Cork South West, Fine Gael)

I thank the Ceann Comhairle for allowing me to speak on this important issue. I record my appreciation of the public service of Deputy Rabbitte who has consistently raised this issue since it came into the public domain and who insisted on having the serious aspects clarified fully, which is what we are trying to do this evening. I fully support his efforts in that regard. We had the usual off-the-cuff comments from the Minister when the issue first broke. He talked about using depositions in the course of a trial. He knows full well the issue will not be resolved by such an approach. A trial is de novo and anybody accused of a serious charge must be entitled to cross-examine the evidence in front of him or her.

I do not intend to comment on the Dermot Laide case arising out of the unfortunate death of Brian Murphy. There is misfortune and sadness on all sides there. However, I wish to touch on a number of general issues. It is quite clear that Dr. Harbison will no longer be available to give evidence in court and that calls for two responses. I pay tribute to him for his service to the nation over many years and we must consider the consequences of his unavailability. There was clearly a conflict between the conclusions he drew in regard to the Laide case and those of the current State pathologist, Dr. Marie Cassidy. Again, we must consider if there are any consequences to be drawn from that.

The first issue touched on by Deputy Rabbitte is how exposed is the criminal justice system as a result of the situation which has arisen. How many cases are outstanding? A number of spokesmen — anonymous people — have commented but do we have an idea as to whether cases will be affected due to the fact that Dr. Harbison's evidence will no longer be available? Could charges or convictions be affected? Are there appeals before the courts? Is there a possibility of retrials arising, particularly in cases where Dr. Harbison's evidence was crucial to a conviction? The public is keen to be given some indication as to the consequences arising from the recent developments.

The second issue which arises is that it is quite clear we have been operating a State pathology system on a shoestring. That has been the case for many years. Dr. Harbison was appointed State pathologist in 1974. At that stage, he was under contract to the Attorney General. He was then transferred to the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions and, ultimately, he was transferred to the Department of Justice in 1996. We tend to associate him with murders or manslaughters, but we must bear in mind that the State pathology service must be at the scene of a suspicious death as quickly as possible to be able to tell the Garda that it should follow a certain line of action and that it must treat it as having criminal dimensions or to be able to tell it the death was as a result of natural causes. Every suspicious case must be looked at by the State pathology service, not only the 50 murders or manslaughters each year. We are talking about hundreds of cases each year. From that point of view, it is clear the office has been under-resourced over the years.

By coincidence, I tabled a parliamentary question this time last year asking about the organisational structure and resourcing of the office. At that stage, the office comprised one State pathologist, one deputy State pathologist, one senior scientist and three clerical officers. It had a budget of approximately €500,000. Around that time another issue arose, namely, the withdrawal of transport facilities to enable the State pathologist to get to the scene of a crime quickly. I was, and still am, very much affected by the horrific murder of Sophie Toscan du Plantier in my constituency approximately ten years ago. Dr. Harbison was not able to get to the scene of that crime for 24 hours and, as a result, vital evidence was lost. Have we learned anything from that over the years? While some progress has been made, we have not fully learnt the lessons we could have learned.

This is not a party issue. As a Legislature, let us understand the services given to the State and the need for a fully equipped and resourced State pathology service to ensure an effective criminal justice system and to ensure the kinds of events that have occurred will not recur. As Deputy Carey stated, let us examine practice in other countries. In England and Wales, the Home Office has approximately 40 pathologists. In Scotland there are enough to have two involved in every case where possible criminal charges may arise. Carol Coulter summed up the matter in The Irish Times some days ago when she said there was no excuse for scrimping on a pathology service. We all accept this and it does not involve enormous sums of money. There is a job to be done and it should be done properly and decently. Doing this is possibly the best tribute we could pay to Professor Harbison.

See this speech in context