Joanna Tuffy (Dublin Mid West, Labour)

There is an issue concerning the Garda Ombudsman's office and how it operates now. The issue of concern to the parents of Derek O'Toole was the incident that led to the death of their son and the handling by the Garda of the subsequent investigation. The parents are motivated because they would like to know what happened on the night in question and whether the incident was properly dealt with by the Garda. He was their eldest child and an exemplary character. They believe he deserved at least that, and this is what motivates them. It is a matter of public interest because I believe what they want investigated by the Garda Ombudsman is exactly what that office was set up to deal with.

If the Garda Ombudsman cannot investigate this type of incident, where can one go? There was never any transparent investigation of the incident and its subsequent handling by the Garda. Even if the family were to look to the inquest, no statement was proffered there by the arresting garda, for example. Therefore there was no transparency at the inquest as regards what happened that night. A case was taken in relation to an aspect of the incident against the garda concerned. However, that was thrown out on a technicality. The parents were brought into a room by senior gardaí and allowed to ask questions verbally, but they were never given anything in writing. There was no proper report that could be transparently considered by them. They have many legitimate questions to ask about the incident. Many of these have been aired in media coverage. There were unusual aspects to the case that demand answers. In so far as we could we set those questions out in the complaint and there has never been an attempt to answer them, so that the answers, regardless of whether they were satisfactory, could be subjected to scrutiny.

As regards the issue of operational matters, surely the way the Garda Síochána carries out an investigation into an incident that involves one of its members must be considered an operational matter. That is my understanding of it. Surely that is the very type of thing that needs scrutiny. We want assurance that a member of the Garda will be treated in an investigation in the same manner as a member of the public. Surely, there is some way a member of the public who has an interest in an incident which involves a member of the Garda Síochána can resolve the question whether the investigation carried out by the Garda was of the same standard as that applying to any member of the public. If the Garda Ombudsman cannot investigate that, where or to whom does a member of the public go?

I shall conclude on that. As Deputy Pat Rabbitte said this morning, it is too early to judge the Garda Ombudsman on the outcome of this complaint, but it is very disappointing for the family concerned. It is very disappointing, too, as a matter of public interest, that the Garda Ombudsman decided he could not investigate the incident or its subsequent handling. It gives rise to very important questions in the context of the future — and that relates to the Morris tribunal findings and the whole issue of transparency concerning the Garda. The questions that arise include whether the Garda Ombudsman has correctly interpreted the legislation as regards this particular complaint. Is the legislation strong enough or is there a loophole? Should a gap be filled so that the public and families such as the O'Tooles have somewhere to go where they may get clarity as regards such a tragic incident relating to their son? They need to be able to put their questions and have them answered, so that the replies may be subjected to public scrutiny. I hope the Minister, in his reply, will answer these questions because it is important in terms of the operation of the Garda Ombudsman Commission and in terms of how the Garda Síochána operates in the future.

See this speech in context