Willie Penrose (Longford-Westmeath, Labour) | Oireachtas source

It is now well over eight years since Shane O'Farrell was killed in a tragedy in August 2011. He was lawfully cycling his bicycle near his home in Carrickmacross. It was clearly an horrific and traumatic tragedy for a brilliant young man who had just completed his thesis for his masters degree in law. Clearly, he had a very bright future ahead of him. It was a traumatic loss of a loved one for the O'Farrell family. I offer my condolences and those of the Labour Party to the family on its sad loss.

Deputy O'Callaghan outlined earlier, in comprehensive detail, the background of the man involved in the fatal collision and who, because of his previous verified criminal record and interaction with An Garda Síochána at various times, should clearly not have been at large to commit the crime. Obviously, an inquiry would have been important for the O'Farrell family, who have behaved with the utmost dignity. They have been very resolute and resilient and they have a number of unanswered questions that they have addressed in a clear fashion to various politicians, including my party leader, Deputy Brendan Howlin. These are questions to which they are clearly entitled to answers.

The motion passed by the Dáil in June 2018 called on the Government to establish immediately a public inquiry into the death of Shane O'Farrell. The support for this motion across the House demonstrated that a clear majority of Members were not satisfied with the piecemeal investigations established to that date given that there were multiple failures in the criminal justice process in the events surrounding Mr. O'Farrell's death. Piecemeal investigation meant each procedural failing was treated as a separate event, and there was no overview of the entire chain of events and of the litany of failures across different agencies and bodies that clearly had responsibilities in policing and the administration of justice.

The Government amendment to the motion, which was defeated, had acknowledged "the commitment of Government, upon completion of the disciplinary process, to consider whether there are matters that require further investigation and if so, to bring before Dáil Éireann, for its urgent consideration, any proposals that it may wish to make in this regard." When the disciplinary investigation was completed, the Government did not revert to the Dáil, as promised. It failed, as its own amendment had promised, "to bring before Dáil Éireann, for its urgent consideration, any proposals that it may wish to make in this regard." That was the first faltering step on the part of the Government. Instead of doing what was promised, the Minister appointed Judge Gerard Haughton to conduct a scoping exercise. That, in itself, is not objectionable as scoping exercises have become the norm to assist in deciding whether a full inquiry is needed and in finalising terms of reference. Judge Haughton was specifically asked to meet the family and advise on whether his terms of reference should be amended.

The Minister for Justice and Equality is on the record as stating Judge Haughton was "free to recommend any course of action" that he considered appropriate. Despite all of this, the Minister rejected the amended terms of reference subsequently submitted by Judge Haughton. Instead of accepting them, the Minister drew up new terms of reference that, on any reading, are much more restrictive than the ones originally drawn up for the judge and more restrictive than those that Judge Haughton had subsequently recommended.

The Minister has pointed out in the past 24 hours that the restriction or curtailment has arisen because of principles emanating from the Supreme Court case of Shatter v. Guerin, which the Minister has advised must now be incorporated into any terms of reference or focus of inquiry, and that this is clearly the advice of the Attorney General. This is all without bringing any proposals back to the Dáil for its consideration, as the Minister had promised. He could have obviated the need even for the motion tonight if he had addressed this in a timely fashion, as promised initially.

I compliment Deputy O'Callaghan and his party on introducing this motion. It is necessary because the Minister has not reverted to the Dáil. The motion is, in part, a compromise. It accepts and adopts the Government's view that any inquiry or investigation should be preceded by a scoping exercise. I concur with that. It is important because we meet every day or week somebody else who wishes to have an inquiry on various issues. Such inquiries are important to the individuals or groups concerned.

A significant number of inquiries are ongoing and some of them are so widespread in their content and objectives that they may never reach a conclusion or will go on for an extended period. This motion seeks to spell out, with much greater precision, what needs to be brought within the ambit of this scoping exercise. That is where I concur with the objectives of the motion.

There are two separate but linked matters on which we need Judge Haughton's view. First, we need a review of the investigations carried out to date. I refer to the criminal prosecution in respect of Mr. O'Farrell's death and the previous prosecutions relating to the same defendant, including: the fact that he had been admitted to bail; the workings of the independent review mechanism; the criminal and disciplinary investigations by the GSOC; and the inquest material. Based on that review, we need a recommendation as to whether there are remaining unanswered questions related to the circumstances of Shane O'Farrell's death that should be the subject of a further and fuller inquiry or investigation.

We also need a review of changes in law and practice in the context of bail and bench warrants. We need to know whether, because of gaps in the system, these awful events could occur again. Is it possible that another repeat offender with two suspended sentences could be granted bail by various courts in this jurisdiction and be the cause of another death? How many times does a person have to reoffend before his bail is revoked? Has there been any reform to our law and procedure to ensure that someone who has been admitted to bail on many occasions, and has been convicted and given suspended sentences that ought to have been activated, could not remain at large and behind the wheel of a motor vehicle? Could it happen again that a car, an unroadworthy vehicle with no tax, is stopped and searched by drug squad detectives and waved on? Could someone convicted of a serious criminal charge be given a custodial sentence but have it suspended on condition that he flee the country?

What is at issue is a demonstrable breakdown in the criminal justice system and a failure of the systems and methods that ought to protect ordinary citizens of this State. That sort of breakdown is not what GSOC is designed to investigate. That is the reason we need an independent inquiry. The Government may disagree with that strong assertion. It may believe that the threshold for holding a new inquiry has not been met. The Government may think that a commission would not further our understanding of this case or uncover any further facts. If so, the Minister must say so now.

A number of points made by the Minister earlier are premised upon the advice of the Attorney General. He reiterated that the Government is as eager as the rest of us here, and the wider public, to make rapid progress on this important matter for the O'Farrell family. There can be no more foot-dragging on this important matter which has been ongoing for too long. The O'Farrell family, who have acted with the greatest restraint and dignity, deserve no less than to have these important issues addressed and questions answered concerning the tragic death of their son Shane.

See this speech in context