Frances Fitzgerald (Dublin Mid West, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I thank Deputy Shatter for raising on Topical Issues the completion last week by GSOC of its investigation into an alleged leak of confidential information concerning the public interest investigation into the alleged surveillance of its offices and its decision not to publish its report into the matter. The House is familiar with the background to this matter, which the Deputy has outlined, and, in particular, the article published by The Sunday Times, which claimed that GSOC was under hi-tech surveillance. While it was clear, following the inquiry by Judge Cooke, that the article contained serious inaccuracies, and while Judge Cooke found that the evidence did not support the proposition that actual surveillance of the kind asserted took place, it was nevertheless clear that The Sunday Timesjournalist, Mr. John Mooney, had received some confidential information relating to these issues, as GSOC had indeed engaged a UK firm, Verrimus, to investigate whether it was under surveillance, and had conducted its own investigation into these concerns.

GSOC engaged a senior counsel to conduct a fact-finding investigation to determine, so far as possible and on the balance of probabilities, the facts relating to this suspected disclosure of information. It is made clear in the report that the senior counsel was given access to all the information and records in the possession of GSOC and it states that he received co-operation from everyone concerned, except for the journalist, Mr. John Mooney, who declined to be interviewed. The senior counsel concluded that he is satisfied the journalist received confidential information from some person or persons associated with the Verrimus or GSOC investigations. He was not able, however, to establish when the journalist received such information, from whom he received it, or the exact nature of the information disclosed.

GSOC considered, in light of the public controversy that surrounded the entire matter, that it was appropriate that I be supplied with a copy of the report. I must stress, however, that it was not supplied to me under the relevant section, section 80, of the Garda Síochána Act 2005, which provides for GSOC reports submitted to me to be laid before both Houses. It was submitted to me by GSOC for information. In fact, GSOC stressed in the covering letter to me that it did not intend to publish the report as it contained personal data, which it said was impossible to redact effectively.

It was absolutely right, and indeed essential, for GSOC to inquire into a concern that confidential information relating to either the Verrimus investigation or GSOC's related investigation was leaked to a journalist. I have also made clear from the outset that I believe that as much information as possible on the outcome of the inquiry should be put in the public domain in the interests of transparency. That is why, while fully respecting GSOC's statutory independence, I have asked GSOC, in consultation with the senior counsel concerned, and with whatever level of redaction might be legally necessary, to consider now publishing the report in the public interest. I have taken legal advice on it and some legal redaction is necessary if there is personal data that it is inappropriate to release.

See this speech in context