Jim O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay South, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

The death of Shane O'Farrell was a terrible tragedy not only for his loving family but, more especially, for himself. Shane, as we know, was a 23 year old graduate of law from University College Dublin. He had his whole life ahead of him and he was deprived of all the opportunities that he could have had. I reflect on my own life and what I was like as a 23 year old. As a graduate of law from UCD, I have had fulfilment and opportunities. Shane never had the chance to experience such fulfilment or opportunities.

Tragedies happen in families throughout this country but the reason the tragedy of Shane O'Farrell merits public discussion and debate in this House and public investigation is because it reveals a very significant inadequacy and inefficiency at the heart of the criminal justice system. It is important that we focus in on the central complaint of the O'Farrell family in respect of the criminal investigation and the Garda investigation into this matter.

It is important to recall that Shane was killed on 2 August 2011. We know the person who was driving the car that collided with his bicycle on that occasion because the person subsequently pleaded guilty to failing to stop at the scene of the crime and report the collision. It should also be noted that the person was subsequently acquitted of the more serious charge of dangerous driving causing death. The real issue of public concern is that the individual accused of these crimes who clearly was driving the car when it collided with Shane's bicycle had a series of criminal offences to his name and if the criminal justice system had been operating efficiently, it is highly likely he would not have been on the road on 2 August 2011.

I move to 11 January 2011, some seven months before Shane's tragic death. On that occasion in Monaghan Circuit Court the accused individual was convicted of theft. The judge stated that if he was convicted of other theft or fraud offences, he was to be brought back before him and that he would be put in jail. Fast-forward to 9 May 2011, three months before Shane's death, in Ardee District Court the individual was convicted of theft. The big question that must be answered is why was he not then brought back before Judge O'Hagan in Monaghan Circuit Court where he would have received a prison sentence and been put in jail. Subsequently on 11 May 2011, in Dundalk District Court the individual was convicted of speeding. On 8 June 2011 in Carrickmacross District Court he was convicted of possession of heroin. On 14 July 2011 in Newry, north of the Border, he was convicted of theft. On 25 July 2011 in Monaghan District Court he was convicted for having no tax disc Court. All of these offences may not have been fraud offences, but they were other offences that meant he had breached his bail bond. The question at the heart of the O'Farrells complaints is why was the individual not brought back before the courts in order that the judge could have been informed and executed the sentence that was hanging over the individual of being put in jail. I do not know what would have happened on 2 August 2011 had the individual been in jail, but there is a strong likelihood that the collision with Shane O'Farrell would not have happened.

We now have GSOC's report which does not answer the question I have just put to the House. We are told by the Minister that the investigation is ongoing. The questions which disclose significant inefficiencies and failings in the criminal justice system merit further and proper investigation. The O'Farrell family have had to wait six years for GSOC's report and are now told that they will have to wait further time to get answers to their questions. I appeal to the Minister to establish a commission of investigation. It is important that we do not give the O'Farrell family false hope. Unfortunately, it is the case that no individual will be convicted for the wrongful death, manslaughter or murder of Shane. That will not happen, but, as a family, they are entitled to accountability. They are entitled to be told why it was that an individual who should have been brought back before the courts was not brought back before thelm and who was responsible.

See this speech in context