Clare Daly (Dublin North, United Left) | Oireachtas source

These amendments raise an extremely important issue in terms of the areas in which difficulties emerge in the interaction between the Garda Síochána Ombudsman Commission and the Garda Síochána. This was a key issue when the previous Garda Commissioner and Minister for Justice and Equality were in office. The perception at that time, which I believe reflected reality, was that in the case of a conflict between GSOC and senior Garda management, namely, the Commissioner, the Minister would side with the Garda Síochána to the detriment of the Garda Síochána Ombudsman Commission. This view was vindicated when, unfortunately, the organisations representing gardaí issued public statements, allegedly at the behest of the former Garda Commissioner, in which they expressed a lack of confidence in GSOC and urged their members not to co-operate with it. Such behaviour is completely unacceptable in a scenario in which one is dealing, in effect, with what used to be the Garda Complaints Board or any other mechanism aimed at creating public accountability in respect of the Garda.

Someone somewhere must step in and compel Garda co-operation, for example, in the handing over of documents. A cursory glance at GSOC's annual reports for the past two years, especially for 2013, shows there were inordinate delays in handing over documentation. No valid reasons were given for these delays and Garda stations issued ridiculous statements to GSOC questioning its decision to seek certain information or arguing that the commission was not entitled to access certain information. This was clearly not the case as there was an obligation on the Garda to provide the information sought by GSOC. Given such blatant disregard for procedure, someone somewhere must intervene. A process of independent adjudication is important.

The boundaries in respect of admissibility must be extended, as provided for in amendment No. 5. We must also extend the scope of admissible complaints to encompass a greater number of people. The exclusion of retired gardaí from the scope of GSOC investigations is regrettable and I understand there are no plans to change the position in this regard. In a number of cases where the noose was tightening, so to speak, or the wolf was at the door, the gardaí who were the subject of the complaints were asked to step aside or told they would be better off retiring as retired gardaí can escape sanction. This is a serious problem.

When we speak of the interaction of GSOC and the Garda Síochána in the period in which complaints are being processed, we must also consider what is taking place outside the process. I will refer to a case that has been raised on numerous occasions in the House, namely, the tragic death of Shane O'Farrell. Shane's mother, Lucia O'Farrell, has been championing her son's case because the man who killed him in a driving incident had obtained car insurance by fraudulent means and had a large number of convictions which were not revealed to the court. GSOC is investigating 59 admissible complaints related to this case in the public interest under section 102. Despite this, one of the senior gardaí involved in handling the case was promoted. The family is asking how it is possible that, on the one hand, 59 admissible complaints of a criminal character are being investigated while, on the other, someone who was involved in the process has been promoted. This interface is a source of great stress for the citizens involved and must be addressed. Moreover, it does not do the Garda any good.

An independent adjudication mechanism is needed and it must have teeth, in particular, with regard to the handing over of documents. Sometimes when a complaint is made against a garda, he or she will get lawyered up, as it were, and a confrontational scenario ensues. A mechanism must be introduced to untangle this to the best extent possible. The amendments are well made and valid.

See this speech in context