Niall Collins (Limerick West, Fianna Fail)

It is beyond doubt that the activities of a tiny number of members of the Garda Síochána in Donegal besmirched and stained the good name of that force that has so loyally served the State and the people for many years. They have brought shame and dishonour to their uniform and to the memory of their colleagues who paid the ultimate price in the discharge of their duty as guardians of the peace. Each of us owes a huge debt of gratitude to Mr. Justice Frederick Morris for the exemplary, methodical and ultimately unflinching way in which he uncovered what happened in Donegal.

I wish to focus my address on two aspects of the Donegal affair which have received scant attention either in the House or in comment following the publication of the two most recent reports. These are very important issues which impact on all of us as working parliamentary representatives and crucially go to the heart of our system of justice. The two issues are the genesis of the Morris inquiry and the action of two Members of this house whose behaviour was so heavily criticised by Mr. Justice Morris.

While these issues are separate in many respects, there is also a common thread that ultimately binds them in the same issue. I wish to cite a number of very important conclusions from Mr. Justice Morris. I do this not to try to score political points but to demonstrate to this House that the actions of two Members and the allegations they were peddling were, in the words of Mr. Justice Morris, "given a standing and authority well beyond that which was justified on the material available".

Mr. Justice Morris points out in his report that:

The Tribunal is satisfied that the interview given by Deputy Higgins to Mr. Connolly made public the core of the allegations contained in the facsimile of the 25th of June 2000. This was calculated to put further pressure on the Minister to convene a sworn public inquiry.[. . .] Deputy Higgins told Mr. Connolly about his meeting with the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform. There was very little attempt to maintain a confidential umbrella over the core allegations by Mr. McBrearty Senior or Deputy Higgins when dealing with Mr. Connolly. This does not sit well with their attempts to rely upon privilege in seeking to maintain the "confidentiality" of the identity of the source of the facsimile when faced with later requests for information from the Murphy inquiry and the Tribunal.

[. .. ]

The Tribunal is satisfied that like his colleague Deputy Higgins, Deputy Howlin was well aware that the source of the information that he had received was not an independent source in the sense that he was the senior counsel representing Mr. Frank McBrearty Senior, who was by that stage engaged in civil proceedings against An Garda Síochána and had numerous grievances against various Gardaí and was campaigning for a public inquiry into the Donegal affair.

If that were so, why was it necessary to envelop these allegations in secrecy? Mr. Justice Morris went on to state:

The main emphasis of the facsimile of the 25th of June was its attack on the reputations of Assistant Commissioners Carty and Hickey. The attack on Assistant Commissioner Carty, who was conducting the investigations in Donegal, was a completely new allegation and it came at a time when he was believed to be finalising his report in respect of the Donegal affair.

In paragraph 3.130 Mr. Justice Morris states clearly that these two Members failed to use their privileged position as public representatives in a responsible manner. The report states:

The Tribunal is satisfied that when the two Teachtaí Dála received the facsimile and information from Mr. Frank McBrearty Senior and Mr. Martin Giblin S.C. they owed it to themselves, to the Minister, and to those who were the subject of the allegations, to explore the information furnished to them somewhat further. The responsibility of the public representative cannot simply be to receive information and pass it on to the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform and expect action. If the Minister were to take no action the Teachtaí Dála would undoubtedly subject him to criticism. If he took action as he did, it would inevitably set in train an inquiry of a most sensational kind calculated to undermine the authority, standing and reputation of those against whom these allegations were made.

This report highlights what motivated these Deputies and is clearly critical of how they did their business. The Morris report goes on to state:

The two Teachtaí Dála were quick to crank up the political temperature in relation to these allegations by taking them immediately to the Minister. These serious allegations merited some further exploration before that step was taken. The two Teachtaí Dála were in contact with one another about the McBrearty affair. They coordinated their approach in Dáil Éireann to an extent in relation to the campaign for a public inquiry. Though the Minister was given to understand that there were two separate and independent sources for this information that co-incidentally arrived to the two Teachtaí Dála at the same time, the reality was that the information came from the same source — the sender of the facsimile Mr. Frank McBrearty Senior.

Mr. Justice Morris made it clear that they should not have pursued their actions unless——

See this speech in context