Rory O'Hanlon (Cavan-Monaghan, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context

As the next three matters are being taken together, each Deputy has five minutes, and the Minister 15 minutes to reply.

Pat Rabbitte (Dublin South West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank the Ceann Comhairle for calling this matter. Yesterday and this morning I raised questions with the Taoiseach about the collapse of the case against Dermot Laide in the Circuit Criminal Court and the responsibility of Government for the State pathology service. The Taoiseach's replies were his characteristic mixture of evasion and obfuscation. He pleaded that he had not been briefed, that the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform was scheduled to deal with the matters — at a time when he patently was not — and finally that no one could answer the questions because they were solely for the Director of Public Prosecutions.

However, it is not the case that the Government or the Minister can hide behind the independence of the DPP. The State pathology service is provided by medical experts directly recruited and contracted to the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform. There is no doubt that the former State pathologist, Dr. John Harbison, provided the State with many years of dedicated and expert service. However, Dr. Harbison is now ill and is unlikely to give evidence in court again. That gives rise to one question: how to substitute for Dr. Harbison's inability to give evidence in future cases about post mortems conducted years ago and about the reports that he wrote years ago on those post mortems.

At one stage, the Minister, Deputy McDowell, was giving the impression he could re-jig the preliminary deposition procedure to preserve the evidence in such cases. However, when the real and obvious difficulties were put to him, his resolve immediately collapsed and he conceded that an accused person's right to test in court the evidence against him or her would always have to take precedence.

At the same time, the Minister was dismissing the idea of having two State pathologists in future. However, by this morning he had become converted to the proposal and was committed to its introduction. The Taoiseach has repeatedly dodged the other question, which is as important — is there any issue as to Dr. Harbison's capacity to have conducted post mortems, to have formed opinions and written reports and to have given evidence in cases that have already been heard and decided?

I ask this because Dr. Marie Cassidy's expert opinion in the Laide case flatly contradicted that of Dr. Harbison. It was not a difference in emphasis or detail within the normal range of variety that one would expect between experts. It was not a difference of opinion that might have led to a manslaughter conviction rather than one for murder. It was much more serious. Dr. Cassidy said in so many words that she could find no cause and effect at all, that there was no evidence that the injuries suffered by Brian Murphy had resulted in his death in the first place. Dr. Cassidy's evidence was never tested in court and now never will be, but if she is correct, it means that Dr. Harbison's opinion and evidence at the first trial was wrong.

Despite the presentation to the media over the weekend, it is now clear that the central problem was not so much that Dr. Harbison could not give evidence but that the prosecution could no longer credibly stand over his evidence. In those circumstances, the DPP's decision to collapse the re-trial was inevitable. Even if Dr. Harbison had been available to give evidence, it is impossible to see how the DPP could have proceeded with that evidence so fatally undermined.

We must face the appalling prospect that the possible or even probable explanation for the disagreement between these two professionals was that Dr. Harbison's health was already in decline when he formed his opinion on Brian Murphy's cause of death. If so, we need to know who knew about that, when they knew and what they did about it. How many post mortems, more than 100 of which he was expected to perform each year, and how many cases, if any, where he gave evidence may have to be reviewed as a result?

The Minister, Deputy McDowell, now says that he was told some months ago — I hope he will state how many months ago — that Dr. Harbison's ill health would affect his future ability to give evidence. Was he told what that ill health was, when it was first identified, or when it might first have impacted on the performance of professional duties? Was he told that not just Dr Harbison's future availability but his previous competence might fall under scrutiny? Given the extensive disclosure obligations that the DPP must discharge to the defence before and during a trial, when did the Department first inform the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions of potential problems with Dr. Harbison's evidence?

I repeat, despite the Taoiseach's attempts to muddy the waters, that this is the responsibility of the Minister, Deputy McDowell, not that of the DPP. The DPP can only be accountable for what he does with information once he receives it. The accuracy and integrity of the information provided by the State pathology service is the direct responsibility of the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform. Last night a spokesperson reassured the public that no other cases would collapse like the Dermot Laide one because of the infirmity of Dr. Harbison. However, this morning the Taoiseach intervened to make clear that no such statements had been issued on his behalf. He has left the Minister, Deputy McDowell, standing alone on this issue.

I cannot remember any issue on which Government members have become so clearly, rapidly and chaotically at sixes and sevens, both between themselves and, in Minister McDowell's, case, between his views one minute and a minute later. However, the question is basic and it is within the Minister's competence to answer. Did the issues about either Dr. Harbison's availability to give evidence or about the reliability of that evidence arise for the first time in the context of the Dermot Laide case? If we can finally have a clear and comprehensive answer to that single question, two days of repeating it will have resulted in progress.

It might have been more appropriate, although time-consuming, to have a question-and-answer session under a Private Notice Question to convey some of the questions that professionals have raised with my office and the undoubted concern in the public sphere. I am sure the Minister, who attended a committee meeting rather than the House, is quite well briefed on the questions, and I hope, given the unusual arrangement of a three-person Adjournment debate, that he will have time to deal with the answers and reassure the public.

Pat Carey (Dublin North West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank the Ceann Comhairle for the opportunity to raise this important matter and the Minister for being here. I look forward to hearing his contribution on this important matter, as Deputy Rabbitte said. I put on record my acknowledgement of the great service Dr. Harbison rendered to this State in his position as Chief State Pathologist for almost 30 years. I also extend my sympathy to the family and friends of Brian Murphy who died in such tragic and violent circumstances.

By raising this matter, it is not my intention to intrude into the private life of Dr. Harbison or to cause any upset to him or his family. This State owes the doctor a debt of gratitude and respect for his many years of dedicated and professional service. His profession is indeed a grim one dealing as it does with the death of a human being often as a result of violence. Nevertheless, it is a vital service which not only requires a great depth of professional skill and knowledge but also to be carried out in a dignified and sensitive manner. Our State pathology service is a vital cog in the wheel of our criminal justice system and, therefore, it is important it operates in a professional manner.

This morning I listened to the Taoiseach on Leaders' Questions outline the facts surrounding the retirement of Dr. Harbison. The reasonable concerns expressed by the Garda Síochána in 2003 in regard to Dr. Harbison performing further autopsies was understandable taking into account his age at that time and that some murder investigations can take a long time before going to trial. I commend the Minister and his officials for the prudent and immediate steps they took in retiring Dr. Harbison from undertaking further autopsies as a result of these concerns.

All Deputies will be aware that Ministers have no role in the investigation or prosecution of cases. It is the role of the Garda to investigate alleged offences, to gather whatever evidence may be available and to submit a report to the Director of Public Prosecutions. As the Taoiseach stated in this House, the question of whether a person should be prosecuted and for what criminal offence is the responsibility of the DPP. Nor is it right to expect that the Taoiseach or the Minister should know if there are other cases that could be affected in which Dr. Harbison was involved. This is a matter entirely for the DPP.

My motivation for raising this matter on the Adjournment is the lessons, if any, we can learn from what has happened and if there is anything else we, as public representatives and legislators, can do to ensure inasmuch as is possible this does not happen again. It would be a good idea if the Minister or the Attorney General, on his behalf, contacted the Director of Public Prosecutions to explore whether there are legislative provisions which should, or could, be made to deal with a situation such as this one. I accept the procedures in place to conduct a criminal prosecution are there for a good reason but I also believe it would be remiss of us not to look at these procedures again in the light of the reason for the DPPs decision in the Laide case.

Has the Minister or his officials looked at the state pathology services in other jurisdictions and at how they operate? I understand that in Scotland, for example, it is general practice for two state pathologists to carry out an autopsy. This means that if one of the pathologists is unable to attend before the court, for whatever reason, for cross-examination, the other pathologist can take his or her place. Surely it would be a good idea for us to consider introducing the same practice.

The criminal justice system has served this country well over the years. It is important the public keeps faith in our justice system. I urge the Government to carefully examine what lessons can be learned from the DPP's decision not to go ahead with the prosecution of Mr. Laide due to the ill-health of Dr. Harbison. I ask the Minister and his officials to examine the state pathology services in other common law countries to see if there are lessons we can learn. I ask the Minister to ensure procedures are put in place by the State pathology service to ensure, in as far as is possible, this does not happen again.

My motivation in raising this important matter is to ensure we have the best possible State pathology service available to our criminal justice system. As a member of the Fianna Fáil Party, I am proud of the massive additional resources, both financial and legislative, this Government has made available across the criminal justice system since 1997. I look forward to hearing the Minister's contribution, particularly any ideas he has in regard to dealing with the issues raised by the DPPs decision of this week.

Jim O'Keeffe (Cork South West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank the Ceann Comhairle for allowing me to speak on this important issue. I record my appreciation of the public service of Deputy Rabbitte who has consistently raised this issue since it came into the public domain and who insisted on having the serious aspects clarified fully, which is what we are trying to do this evening. I fully support his efforts in that regard. We had the usual off-the-cuff comments from the Minister when the issue first broke. He talked about using depositions in the course of a trial. He knows full well the issue will not be resolved by such an approach. A trial is de novo and anybody accused of a serious charge must be entitled to cross-examine the evidence in front of him or her.

I do not intend to comment on the Dermot Laide case arising out of the unfortunate death of Brian Murphy. There is misfortune and sadness on all sides there. However, I wish to touch on a number of general issues. It is quite clear that Dr. Harbison will no longer be available to give evidence in court and that calls for two responses. I pay tribute to him for his service to the nation over many years and we must consider the consequences of his unavailability. There was clearly a conflict between the conclusions he drew in regard to the Laide case and those of the current State pathologist, Dr. Marie Cassidy. Again, we must consider if there are any consequences to be drawn from that.

The first issue touched on by Deputy Rabbitte is how exposed is the criminal justice system as a result of the situation which has arisen. How many cases are outstanding? A number of spokesmen — anonymous people — have commented but do we have an idea as to whether cases will be affected due to the fact that Dr. Harbison's evidence will no longer be available? Could charges or convictions be affected? Are there appeals before the courts? Is there a possibility of retrials arising, particularly in cases where Dr. Harbison's evidence was crucial to a conviction? The public is keen to be given some indication as to the consequences arising from the recent developments.

The second issue which arises is that it is quite clear we have been operating a State pathology system on a shoestring. That has been the case for many years. Dr. Harbison was appointed State pathologist in 1974. At that stage, he was under contract to the Attorney General. He was then transferred to the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions and, ultimately, he was transferred to the Department of Justice in 1996. We tend to associate him with murders or manslaughters, but we must bear in mind that the State pathology service must be at the scene of a suspicious death as quickly as possible to be able to tell the Garda that it should follow a certain line of action and that it must treat it as having criminal dimensions or to be able to tell it the death was as a result of natural causes. Every suspicious case must be looked at by the State pathology service, not only the 50 murders or manslaughters each year. We are talking about hundreds of cases each year. From that point of view, it is clear the office has been under-resourced over the years.

By coincidence, I tabled a parliamentary question this time last year asking about the organisational structure and resourcing of the office. At that stage, the office comprised one State pathologist, one deputy State pathologist, one senior scientist and three clerical officers. It had a budget of approximately €500,000. Around that time another issue arose, namely, the withdrawal of transport facilities to enable the State pathologist to get to the scene of a crime quickly. I was, and still am, very much affected by the horrific murder of Sophie Toscan du Plantier in my constituency approximately ten years ago. Dr. Harbison was not able to get to the scene of that crime for 24 hours and, as a result, vital evidence was lost. Have we learned anything from that over the years? While some progress has been made, we have not fully learnt the lessons we could have learned.

This is not a party issue. As a Legislature, let us understand the services given to the State and the need for a fully equipped and resourced State pathology service to ensure an effective criminal justice system and to ensure the kinds of events that have occurred will not recur. As Deputy Carey stated, let us examine practice in other countries. In England and Wales, the Home Office has approximately 40 pathologists. In Scotland there are enough to have two involved in every case where possible criminal charges may arise. Carol Coulter summed up the matter in The Irish Times some days ago when she said there was no excuse for scrimping on a pathology service. We all accept this and it does not involve enormous sums of money. There is a job to be done and it should be done properly and decently. Doing this is possibly the best tribute we could pay to Professor Harbison.

Michael McDowell (Dublin South East, Progressive Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank the Deputies for the opportunity to clarify some of the questions raised in this House and elsewhere on this subject in recent days.

Brian Murphy's death on 31 August 2000, which date must be remembered, was a tragic loss of a young man. I know we all sympathise with his family, not only in their obvious grief on his death but also in their perception that the criminal justice system has somehow let them down. It is also fair to say there is understandable frustration in the public mind that it has not been possible to identify and hold someone to account in criminal law directly for the young man's death. It should be remembered that two of the accused were convicted of violent disorder arising from the incident in question. Dermot Laide, in fairness to him, has accepted the correctness of his own conviction for violent disorder.

Acknowledging the family's frustration should not prompt us, as politicians, to gloss over the complexity of the matter or lash out at convenient scapegoats. It is evident that the elaborate investigation into Brian Murphy's death presented very real challenges for the Garda. The circumstances of the incident, the number of persons involved and the impact of the extraordinary amount of alcohol apparently consumed all gave rise to significant difficulties in securing satisfactory evidence and reliably establishing causation and criminal liability to a level that would stand up to scrutiny.

There is no doubt that very considerable efforts were made to bring prosecutions successfully. However, that the end result disappoints does not necessarily impugn the entire process or imply negligence or failure on the part of any of those involved. I will not labour the point but, as everybody in this House will recognise, there are good reasons our system requires that the burden of establishing guilt in criminal matters be a heavy one. It involves establishing proof beyond reasonable doubt. It might be tempting to some to attribute criminal responsibility at lower levels of probability or with less evidence but the end result would undoubtedly give rise to injustice.

I am also concerned at the attempt to direct whatever frustration exists surrounding these events into a critique of the arrangements made for Professor Harbison's retirement. I prosecuted and defended in many cases in which Professor Harbison appeared as a witness and noted that he was totally professional in the way he carried out his functions. He was, almost to a fault, prepared to concede that his own view might be wrong and to explore, with the counsel in cross-examination, alternative hypotheses. He was humble in this respect and did not state he would not budge from his point of view on the cause of death. He was prepared to deal fairly with the questions put to him by advocates on behalf of the accused where they disagreed with the view he took.

To clarify matters, in January 2003 gardaí suggested to a senior official of the Department that Professor Harbison should no longer take on new cases given that he was advancing in years, being then about 68 years of age. The role of State Pathologist is obviously a very onerous one, bearing in mind that murder cases take considerable time from the time of arrest to reach trial. This frequently took two years. I am about to publish, in the near future, a report dealing with the question of delay between arrest and trial in the justice system in respect of serious cases of rape and murder.

In the aforementioned circumstances, the decision of the Garda to draw the Department's attention to the fact that a 68-year old man was in the breach in the gap dealing with these matters was prudent and reasonable. This leaves out entirely the question of cases in which no person was suspected, arrested or under charge, and in which his evidence might become relevant in three, five or eight years. Quite clearly, there was a legitimate cause for concern.

Professor Harbison subsequently retired as State Pathologist and performed no new State autopsies since January 2003. The offence in question occurred in August 2000. As part of the arrangements made for his retirement, it was agreed that Professor Harbison be retained on a consultancy basis to conclude the cases in which he had been involved prior to January 2003. This was necessarily a finite number and represented a sensible means of phasing out his involvement as a witness in the backlog of cases that would arise from the autopsy and pathology work he had done on behalf of the State. On examining the matter, it is very hard to determine what alternative course of action could have been followed by the State. I believe there was none.

Since January 2003, Professor Harbison has continued to give expert evidence in these cases. He has testified in the courts, has been subject to cross-examination, re-examination and examination in chief. The first suggestion I received that illness might prevent him testifying in further cases was made within the past two months when a journalist made inquiries of my press officer on the subject. On receipt of these inquiries, I was informed that Professor Harbison had indeed become unwell and might not be able to testify. My understanding is that he recently withdrew from the Brian Murphy case on the advice of his doctor.

My Department has no way of determining how many cases may be outstanding as the bringing of prosecutions, retrials, etc., is entirely within the remit of the Director of Public Prosecutions. However, given that Professor Harbison has not performed any new post mortems for more than three years, it seems reasonable to infer that there is no significant number of current cases still awaiting trial. Out of deference to his privacy and in acknowledgement of his immense contribution to the State over his 28-year career, it is preferable that we consider future issues — I believe there are such issues — in general rather than in the particular context of what he has done for us.

The question of the impact of non-availability of an expert or other witness on a trial gives rise to a broad range of issues of very general application. However, it should be remembered that vital witnesses become unavailable because of illness or infirmity or death. This always has a consequence for pending trials. Equally, we should recall that a violent attempt was made to take out Dr. James Donovan, who was the State's chief forensic scientist, by way of assassination to pervert the course of justice.

Our system places significant emphasis on the provision of direct evidence which can be cross-examined and challenged. The criminal law already makes provision, in sections 14 or 15 of the 1967 Act — I may be incorrect about this — to a somewhat limited extent in respect of cases which have been returned for trial, for the taking of depositions from witnesses who may not be expected to be available when the case comes to trial. However, this does not deal with a witness with many cases on hand, in which, due to some totally unpredictable circumstance, such as accidental death or a cerebral haemorrhage, he or she would become incapable of testifying. I intend to study extending the scope of the law to a more general provision for taking account of circumstances where a witness is no longer available for certain extraordinary reasons. However, as Deputy Rabbitte noted, I will have to approach this with caution. Should we allow an exception to the hearsay rule which would, for instance, allow expert evidence in murder trials to be given on the basis of notes and reports of pathologists who are unavailable because of illness or death? There are obvious risks associated with reducing the protections available to the accused, especially where particular reliance is to be made on expert evidence. On the other hand it is reasonable to ask the question, especially in an old case. There have been cases where a person was strangled and 20 years later, somebody becomes available as an accused person either through another person's testimony, forensic evidence or a confession. In those cases we must ask whether it is reasonable to expect that the original pathologist who carried out the post mortem would still be available to give oral evidence to a jury.

Deputies Rabbitte and Carey referred to the suggestion that the State pathologists could operate in pairs to allow for a fallback witness in the event of one not being available to testify. This approach, which I understand is that applied in Scotland, is certainly worth considering. However, I understand Scotland has a different system from that which applies in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. It does not have a state pathologist of the kind that we have. It delegates and contracts out to four universities the holding of autopsies and the provision of pathological reports in respect of those offences.

While it may well be prudent to provide for two people to preside at every autopsy, that would not solve every problem. To get two people to the scene of every crime as well as to the autopsy would not in every case be guaranteed. There are significant logistical and efficiency considerations which would need to be reviewed if we were routinely to double up in the assignment of expert witnesses across the board. In the du Plantier case, to which Deputy Jim O'Keeffe referred, it was hard enough to get one person to that neck of the woods in a hurry. To get two people there at the wrong time of the year could be very difficult.

We would also need to consider the possibility that such an approach might give rise to complications in the event of divergence on the part of the experts concerned. I am not too concerned about this aspect because if we have two opinions from people reviewing the same evidence, the accused is entitled to the benefit of the doubt, provided that both are reasonably expert. Nevertheless I am disposed to give active consideration to this option.

I intend to raise these issues with Professor Marie Cassidy in the coming days and to explore carefully the various options which might be open to us. My Department is fully supportive of her work and has increased the resources available to her office in recent years. Arrangements are also under way to improve her office and laboratory facilities and to make available a driver service for when the pathologists are on call. If there are other ways in which the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform can work with her to ensure that the State pathology service continues to make an effective contribution, we will certainly pursue them.

There are a number of serious problems with Deputy Rabbitte's remarks. First, no one has suggested that Professor Harbison was in any way unfit or unwell at the time he carried out the post mortem or made his findings in this case in early September 2000. Presumably his testimony in the court case accorded with his findings at that time. The report of Professor Cassidy, as she makes clear, was not done on the basis of a physical examination of the body of the late Brian Murphy or on the basis of access to Professor Harbison's report on the issue. It would be wrong to infer, as Deputy Rabbitte seems to have done, that Professor Harbison's evidence was wrong or that he would, if in good health, have been unable to defend and validate his original findings. I assume that Professor Harbison prepared a report on Brian Murphy's post mortem in 2000 and that he was extensively and rigorously examined and cross-examined by counsel for all the accused about that report at the trial in February 2004. Nobody has suggested to me that in some way he ducked out of cross-examination or that the jury did not hear him put to the test on his testimony.

Equally it is wrong to suggest that the Department was aware of any problem with Professor Harbison's health before such problems became known to the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions. That office is intimately acquainted with criminal investigations and is in direct communications and privity with the Garda regarding witnesses, evidence and the quality of evidence. These matters are not discussed generally in the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform.

In answer to one of Deputy Rabbitte's questions, I have never been given any information that would lead me to believe that any testimony in any other case given by Professor Harbison was suspect or unreliable. I presume in all those cases counsel was available to cross-examine and challenge anything that seemed unlikely or untrue.

It is wholly wrong to suggest that the Government is at sixes and sevens on the outcome of this case. The case is one in which the Director of Public Prosecutions has charge and responsibility. The Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform is not involved in cases of this type and is not in a position to answer detailed questions about the case or its progress. It follows that the Taoiseach of the day is not in a position to answer in detail on these matters. We have an independent system and the Taoiseach is not in a position at Leaders' Questions to give the House authoritative or clear indications of factors which did or did not come into play in any particular prosecution. Long may that be the case.

Pat Rabbitte (Dublin South West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

He was not asked any questions of that regard.

Michael McDowell (Dublin South East, Progressive Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

My spokesperson never stated that no further cases will be affected by the illness of Professor Harbison.

Pat Rabbitte (Dublin South West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Why was it reported otherwise?

Michael McDowell (Dublin South East, Progressive Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

No such statement was made by or on behalf of my Department or the Government. It was inferred by some media that, given the length of time since Professor Harbison's retirement, it was unlikely that many cases remained unresolved. It was never stated by me, my Department, the Taoiseach or anybody in Government that there was no such case.

Pat Rabbitte (Dublin South West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It was the first item on the news last night and repeated in the broadsheets.

Rory O'Hanlon (Cavan-Monaghan, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The time has concluded.

Michael McDowell (Dublin South East, Progressive Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It may be interesting to the Deputy to realise that he cannot believe everything printed in the newspapers.

Jim O'Keeffe (Cork South West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Perhaps we should not believe anything from the Department.

Michael McDowell (Dublin South East, Progressive Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

No spokesperson in the Department could possibly say there are no other cases since no spokesperson in the Department would possibly have that knowledge in his or her mind or be in a position to hand on such misinformation to the public.

Pat Rabbitte (Dublin South West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

They could not all make it up.

Michael McDowell (Dublin South East, Progressive Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Given the amount of time since Professor Harbison's retirement and given that a great number of the cases in which he was involved have been dealt with, I believe it is very unlikely that many cases remain unresolved. I do not believe it is likely that many other cases would be affected. However, the suggestion that the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform stated that this is not a problem and there is no other case is not true.

Pat Rabbitte (Dublin South West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Minister should not blame us.

Michael McDowell (Dublin South East, Progressive Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am not blaming anybody. I am making a very simple point. As the Deputy knows very well, given his remarks on wealth tax, one needs to be careful about what is made of one's remarks in the newspapers.

Pat Rabbitte (Dublin South West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Never mind the wealth tax, can we believe anything from the Department?

Michael McDowell (Dublin South East, Progressive Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Taoiseach has limited knowledge on this matter, as do I. He was not evasive in any sense and he did not attempt to muddy the waters at any time. He attempted to the best of his ability to answer the questions put by Deputy Rabbitte who, having sat at the Cabinet table, knows full well that the Taoiseach of the day is not and can never be acquainted with the intimate detail of any prosecution. We have an independent system of prosecutions in this country.

I will finish by making a very simple point. I reiterate my sympathy to the parents of Brian Murphy. I pass on my best wishes to a loyal servant of the State, Professor John Harbison, for all he has done for it. In this case, there is no conspiracy, there is no smoking gun and there is no appalling suppression of the truth or anything else. All Professor Harbison's testimony has always been generous. As I said, those who witnessed him testifying said that his testimony is characterised by an overweening willingness to concede the possibility that he is wrong. His testimony has been tested by skilled advocates in courts of law established under the Constitution. Therefore, I assure the House that this is not a case in which there is some concealment or disguising of what happened. We can learn lessons from this straightforward set of circumstances.

Jim O'Keeffe (Cork South West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

There is a lack of resources.

Michael McDowell (Dublin South East, Progressive Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

They are not lessons which should be learned on the basis of destroying the reputation of any individual.

Jim O'Keeffe (Cork South West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Minister should establish a proper office and give it the resources it needs.