Mattie McGrath (Tipperary, Independent) | Oireachtas source

I, too, am delighted to get the opportunity to speak tonight on the Fennelly report. I will stick to the findings regarding the Tipperary division as I represent Tipperary with my colleague who is in the Chamber, Deputy Cahill, and others.

I thank the eminent justice and his team for the work they have done in dealing with this hugely significant issue. I thank the Minister for her briefing last week also.

8 o’clock

Given that it is impossible to focus on all the issues raised, such as possible breaches of privacy, legal confidentiality and so forth, I will limit my remarks to putting on the record the findings the commission made with respect to County Tipperary and the Tipperary Garda division.

There is an old adage that where Tipperary leads, Ireland follows. Unfortunately, in this case I hope it did not, although it appears that it did. There were 23 divisional headquarters identified in the 1995 Garda code. These divisions remained broadly the same over the following 20 years. Each of these divisional headquarters developed its own practices around telephone recording. This is part of the problem. They appeared to grow organically in many divisions and do not appear to have been directed by Garda headquarters in any meaningful way. It is similar to the helicopters spreading fertiliser in the forestry, which appears to be very organic. It was not possible for the commission to pinpoint the exact date of the installation of recording devices in each case. It beggars belief that it could not get that information from An Garda Síochána.

However, the commission gives a list of approximate dates for when the equipment was installed in each division. It notes that for the Tipperary division the recording devices were installed on 24 November 1996. Of the two technicians working at Thurles Garda station who gave evidence to the commission, one said that he was aware of the NICE model of recording policy document emanating from the telecommunications section, while the other said he was not. It is a 50% failure rate immediately. As a matter of practice, they responded to verbal and written requests for recordings without seeking authorisation from the superintendent. In or around 2010, the regional telecommunications sergeant provided a template form to be used by officers requesting recordings, but it appears they were not often used. One would wonder what was happening given that they were not used in the vast majority of cases. Only six such forms were produced to the commission in response to a request for the records kept. If a person was in school and he or she provided that type of result, that person would receive a bad fail. It would not be an E but a grade further down the line.

In terms of divisional stations and the solicitors’ telephone numbers gathered - this is huge - the Commission found that 166 numbers had been gathered while a total of 60 had been recorded. The calls of 60 solicitors in Garda stations in Tipperary were being recorded. Further results for the Tipperary division reveal that searches for telephone call recordings were made by the commission team on 11 and 12 August 2015. As I mentioned, it was found that a total of 60 solicitors’ telephone calls had been recorded in this division. To test these results, in or about March 2016, technicians at Garda headquarters searched the database for Tipperary for the period between 22 August 2008 and 19 August 2009. A total of 210,000 calls were found. A further search of the period from January to December 2012 was conducted and more than 150,000 calls were found. That is a total of 360,000 calls recorded, unknown to solicitors when they were dealing with clients detained in the Garda station. One wonders who could have the time to listen to the calls and why there were so many recording devices. What was the need for it?

The commission further informs us that one of the technicians stationed in Thurles, during the early period of the digital audio tape, DAT, system, employed a different system from the other technicians regarding requests made to him for copies of recorded calls. He would locate the relevant call and prepare the machine to make a copy of the recording, but would then ask the member seeking the recording to press the record button. Clearly, it was to ensure he would not be identified as doing the recording. In his view, this meant the member requesting the call was then responsible for the recording and for making any statements of evidence that might be required relating to it. The technician told the commission he did this to avoid having any involvement in the process beyond the purely technical aspect of locating the call. This member transferred from Thurles in 1998 and his approach was not adopted by any other member.

All of these issues reveal an incredible lack of oversight and managerial guidance from those at the top of An Garda Síochána, not the ordinary gardaí who, as I said last night, provide a very thin line between people and violence, all kinds of debauchery, attacks and crime. They always stand in the face of death and adversity. Many rank and file members had to use their own discretion and judgment in the absence of a coherent policy on these matters. This is borne out by the finding of the commission that the technician stationed in Tipperary in 1996 did not recall ever seeing instructions from his chief superintendent. However, he developed his own policy regarding the tapes which was to similar effect, that is, retaining the tapes for 30 days. He told the commission he adopted this practice because it was similar to that used for the storage of videotapes of closed circuit television, CCTV, footage.

Two tapes recorded simultaneously in the DAT recorder. In the other divisions, this meant that there were two identical copies of the recordings and the two tapes were changed at the same time. In Thurles, however, the technician staggered the tapes and one tape was changed every fortnight. For a period of two weeks, therefore, there were two copies of each call available. After the two week period, only the recording on the tape was available. This was then kept for one month. From 1998, a new technician was stationed in Tipperary. He continued the practice that had been in place before his arrival and the DAT tapes were kept in his office at Thurles Garda station. They were kept in a wooden cabinet. The cabinet was not locked but the door to the office had a key code and was locked. This technician was not aware of any policy relating to the retention or storage of the tapes.

I do not know where we will go with this. I do not know how the senior people in the Garda can wash their hands and plead ignorance, and I accept that the Minister cannot give the answers either. I thank Mr. Justice Fennelly for doing so much work. I tried to access telephone calls that I made one night in 2006 to Dungarvan Garda station. I made two calls but I could not get the calls. They were not recorded as they were inward. They were of a distressed nature. When I sought the records I could not get them. I received blank pages for an entire weekend of calls on my telephone. Somebody is praying for me because, thankfully, a few days later the full records came from Eircom with the calls I had made. How do I know what telephone calls were listened to during that period and during the following court case in which I was involved? I must talk to the Minister face to face about this at some stage, with her permission. Thankfully, I was never detained in a Garda station but how can I know whose solicitors' calls were being recorded?

I realise it is sub judicebut there is an ongoing, and very weird, case in Dungarvan in respect of a member of my family. I was in the same place at the same time but no statements were taken from me, nor were statements taken from my daughter or from 20 or 30 people who were there. A charge has emanated from it. It is downright disgraceful. There is another superintendent in that station running amok and doing what he likes. I will greet him head on in the courts and will deal with him. He will not get away with this one, but it is a mockery.

See this speech in context