Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 6: To ask the Tánaiste and Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform his views on the decision of the Supreme Court to increase to €4.7 million compensation paid to a person (details supplied) arising from what the court described as the outrageous conduct by gardaí to the person; if the Garda will issue a formal apology to the person; his further views on the observation by the court that no explanation had been provided as to the way a person in authority later very cynically arranged for an offer to be made to the person that, on condition of dropping their appeal, they would secure early release; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [13253/07]

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

There is no doubt that the circumstances giving rise to the judgment in question constitute further evidence of an extremely disturbing picture of misbehaviour by some gardaí in County Donegal in the 1990s. Anyone who strongly supports the Garda Síochána, as I and the vast majority of Deputies and citizens do, is entitled to express and feel a great sense of shock, disappointment and dismay at what happened to the person to whom Deputy Howlin refers. While the two members who were central to this case, one a superintendent and the other a detective garda, have either been dismissed or resigned, the case shows more clearly than perhaps any other the need for the radical reform which was facilitated and underpinned by the historic enactment of the Garda Síochána Act 2005.

The Supreme Court was unequivocal in its condemnation of the disreputable conduct of the two members of the Garda who were central to this case. I am heartened, however, that the court acknowledged that the manifestly egregious behaviour of the two gardaí in question should not be let cast aside our respect for the dedication shown by the vast majority of members through the years. It is important that I should make this point because I am aware that many exemplary members of the Garda Síochána feel betrayed by what the Supreme Court characterised as the "gravest dereliction of duty and abuse of power that one could ever fearfully contemplate would be engaged in by servants of the State and officers of law and order." In addition to the formal apology already offered by the State in the context of proceedings, the Garda Commissioner has written to the individual in question offering an apology on his behalf and that of the force. I understand this apology has been wholeheartedly accepted.

The Deputy asks my view about an offer which was made by "someone in authority" to the person in question to the effect that if he dropped his appeal the State would not proceed with the six outstanding charges pending against him and he would be transferred to an open prison and released early. My understanding is that while the existence of this offer only came to light during the civil proceedings, the name or status of the person in authority who made the offer was not disclosed. The implementation of any such offer, which in my view would have been gravely wrong, would require the agreement of the Director of Public Prosecutions as regards the prosecutorial aspects and agreement of the Minister as regards the aspects relating to imprisonment.

My personal attention was not drawn to this matter until the Supreme Court issued its judgment on 21 March 2007. The Supreme Court states the offer was made in October 1995 when neither I nor my immediate predecessor was in office. While I am not in a position to comment on the state of knowledge of the Minister of the day, I would be very surprised if the then Minister was aware of or approved the making of such an offer. The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform has no responsibility or authority in respect of the prosecution of criminal offences and was not party to the original prosecution or the appeal in question. I have been informed by my officials that from the checks made within the time available, there is no evidence in the Department that either the Minister of the day or officials were parties to, consulted about or even aware of the making of an offer of this type.

I have asked the Garda Commissioner to conduct inquiries into this matter to ascertain if there was any Garda involvement. Decisions relating to the prosecution of criminal charges are a matter for the Director of Public Prosecutions and I am not in a position to make any comment on that aspect. I will, however, ask the DPP to ascertain whether any such offer was made by or made known to any person acting on behalf of the DPP. I will also ask the Irish Prison Service and the probation service to make inquires into the making of such an offer, which I regard as a very serious matter.

Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I welcome the Minister's full response. It is almost necessary to preface all questions of this type by stating, as the Minister did, that the great majority of gardaí are fine, upstanding, hard working, diligent, law-abiding people who do the State a great service. While I do not believe it is necessary to make this statement every time we comment on these matters, I do so because it reflects the general view.

We have given extraordinary powers to the Garda Síochána, and the House will later discuss a Bill which will give it further powers. We must, therefore, have confidence that these powers will never be abused in the manner indicated by this awful case.

Since I tabled the question I listened to Mr. Shortt speak on radio when he said he was very moved to receive a personal letter from the Garda Commissioner. This was a welcome step. Since the apology from the State, to which the Minister referred, was, to use Mr. Shortt's word "dragged" from the State's legal team during the court proceedings, will the Minister take this opportunity to make a full apology to the Shortt family on behalf of the State for the egregious wrong done to them and the terrible suffering they endured? Such a gesture would help the process of healing, understanding and moving on.

The Supreme Court, in its ruling, argued that a countervailing check is required to the practice of giving particular weight to the evidence of members of the Garda Síochána. Robust mechanisms must be in place for this purpose and the requirement set down by the Chief Justice, that the Oireachtas take all necessary steps to ensure, in as far as is practicable, that such deliberate abuse of power is not repeated and is prevented, must be met by the House and the Minister.

On the offer of early release from prison made to Mr. Shortt, I welcome the inquiries the Minister is undertaking of each of the arms of the State which may be in a position to shed light on the matter. I am confident the Minister of the day did not have knowledge of the offer and I accept the Minister's word that officials in his Department were not aware of it. We need to know the source of this offer, which placed pressure on a person who had been cruelly damaged by the State and its agents.

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

It is of some note that the judgment of the Chief Justice states: "Who was involved in making this offer of a "deal" to the plaintiff and how the fulfilment of a promise to drop outstanding charges and ensure early release could have been achieved was never explored or explained in the evidence." I am totally in the dark, as was the Chief Justice when he wrote the judgment, as to precisely what were the implications of that evidence.

In case my earlier remarks carried a different implication, I do not suggest that the then Director of Public Prosecutions was party to such an offer and I would be very surprised if that were the case. This begs the question as to who was behind the making of such an offer.

On Deputy Howlin's first question, I completely endorse and repeat, in the same terms, what the Garda Commissioner said in his letter to Mr. Shortt. Everybody who has heard about these matters shares a sense of revulsion, shock and contrition that servants or agents of the State would behave in such a manner towards a citizen.

In fairness to the lawyers acting for the State in the case, whereas they may not have offered an apology readily, lawyers are normally sent in to defend cases rather that act as Ministers of the State in making apologies. I do not want my comments to reflect in any way on their competence or professionalism. I am sure they were doing as they were asked in a competent and professional manner.

I was in the Deputy's constituency the other day attending the conference of the Association of Garda Sergeants and Inspectors——

Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I attended last night.

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

——and there was a general feeling of revulsion among those present, who were almost sick to the stomach about the effect on the Garda Síochána of behaviour of this kind. It defies belief that people would do——

Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The effect on the Shortt family is more important.

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

Exactly. The Garda Síochána Act put in place a radically different approach to accountability from that found by Mr. Justice Morris when he conducted his inquiries into events in County Donegal. Apart from individual accountability and remedies and new disciplinary procedures, the Act also provides for the Garda Síochána Ombudsman Commission. Ample inquiries have been made in the case under discussion.

The Garda Síochána Ombudsman Commission will be a very significant countervailing force. However, if we invest members of the Garda Síochána with these very significant powers, which they must have in a sophisticated society, there is a correlative obligation of responsibility, loyalty, truthfulness and ethical behaviour that must be upheld to the highest standards. The vast majority of gardaí understand and acknowledge this and feel betrayed when one or two of their number departs, as in this case, in such a spectacularly criminal way.

Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

At this late stage, can we explore the identity of the person who made — as was stated by the Supreme Court — a cynically arranged offer to Mr. Shortt on condition that he drop the appeal against his conviction in order to obtain early release? Will the Minister appoint an external person to make the inquiries to which he referred, rather than simply writing a letter, so he can come back speedily to Mr. Shortt and perhaps to the House to report on how those inquiries have advanced?

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

I do not want to add to the suffering of the individual who was so wronged by the State by dragging him into this matter. Clearly, the individual in question must know how the offer was communicated and who communicated it, if not who was behind the making of the offer. It may have come through lawyers but, as I do not know the facts, it is a matter I will have to examine.

Before I appoint people to make these inquiries, I should make preliminary inquiries to ascertain whether there is a simple explanation for this and whether a simple identification of who was involved is possible. Rather than establishing a formal inquiry, I would prefer to make informal inquiries to see whether I can get to the bottom of this allegation, which I regard as grave.