Charles Flanagan (Laois-Offaly, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 1: To ask the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform his views on whether it is necessary to introduce new legislation to facilitate prosecutions in view of the Garda investigation into the cover up of clerical child sexual abuse in 2002, referenced in the Murphy Commission Report, and the failure of investigators to refer a file to the Director of Public Prosecutions. [46445/09]

Dermot Ahern (Louth, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It is important to recognise that the report of the commission describes the Garda investigation in 2002 as probably the most comprehensive Garda investigation into clerical sexual abuse ever undertaken in the State and as effective, co-ordinated and comprehensive. It resulted in a number of files being sent to the Director of Public Prosecutions and, following his directions, people have appeared before the courts charged with serious offences. Some of these cases are ongoing.

I presume the Deputy's question refers specifically to that part of the report which is entitled "Misprision of Felony Investigation". The commission notes the difficulties, particularly of a legal kind, which surrounded that part of the Garda investigation. Following publication of the report, the Garda Commissioner asked an assistant commissioner, John O'Mahony, to examine the report's findings relating to the handling of complaints and investigations by church and State. After the Garda Commissioner has received the report of the assistant commissioner's examination, he will consult with the Director of Public Prosecutions as to what issues arise in the context of criminal liability.

It would be a disservice to the victims of abuse not to acknowledge the difficulties surrounding any such examination but I am satisfied that everything possible will be done to pursue this matter robustly and comprehensively. I am open to any suggestions the Deputy might have for new legislation to facilitate prosecutions but I am sure he appreciates that we cannot change our law to create criminal offences retrospectively. It is the case that developments in the law which took place after the events referred to in the report, particularly the offence of reckless endangerment in the Criminal Justice Act 2006, have considerably strengthened the law in this area.

Charles Flanagan (Laois-Offaly, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I welcome the comments made by the Minister in the immediate aftermath of the report's publication when he stated that nobody was above the law and appropriate investigations would take place with a view to criminal proceedings not only being issued but convictions being attained. In that context will the Minister outline to the House the difference between the current Garda investigation and the Garda investigation which took place following the broadcast of the televisions programme in 2002 entitled "Cardinal Sins"? The then Garda Commissioner appointed a 20-strong force to investigate matters at that time.

I put it to the Minister that perhaps the most important difference between the Murphy report and the previous Ryan and Ferns reports is that the fundamental basis of the Murphy report was not so much the sexual abuse but rather the cover-up and the manner in which the hierarchy was, in effect, given immunity by the Garda. What is the difference between this Garda investigation and the 2002 Garda investigation which really had no effect? The report indicates that the investigation in 2002 did not lead to any appreciable number of prosecutions.

Dermot Ahern (Louth, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Many prosecutions of abusers have been taken and hardly a day goes by when cases are not brought up. That is not just for the Dublin area but across the country. The unit dealing with domestic violence and sexual crime that the Garda has set up has been very successful in that respect.

On the most recent announcement by the Garda Commissioner, my understanding having spoken to him on the matter is that this investigation will hone in on the issues relating to whether the State and church authorities in some way facilitated people in evading justice. As I commented at the launch of the report, we must be realistic about this. The law has changed, with a significant issue being the abolition of the offence of misprision of felony a number of years ago. Any change now made can only be prospective and not retrospective. There are difficulties in that respect.

The law has correctly moved on, particularly with the 2006 Act, where a reckless endangerment offence has been brought in as a result of a recommendation from the previous Ferns Report.

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

Before he leaves the Visitors Gallery, I acknowledge Fr. Mal Sinnott, a sometime constituent of mine. We are delighted to see him not only in Leinster House but back in this country. I know the House would like to join me in those sentiments.

Charles Flanagan (Laois-Offaly, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I join the Leas-Cheann Comhairle in his remarks. Among the pieces of legislation available to the prosecuting authorities is section 7 of the Criminal Law Act 1997, which deals specifically with impeding the prosecution of someone guilty of an offence. How many such prosecutions have been brought under that legislation since 1997?

One of the few other options is the common law charge of perverting or obstructing the course of justice. How many prosecutions have been brought through this which deal with the concealing of information on the matter of sexual abuse?

Dermot Ahern (Louth, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I do not have those figures but perhaps the Deputy could put down a separate question to get them. The Criminal Law Act 1997, which passed in March that year, abolished the distinction between felonies and misdemeanours. The commission reported that the vast majority of complaints regarding alleged offences were misdemeanours rather than felonies. To a certain extent the goalposts have changed because the law has moved on. Any prosecutions that might relate to before 1997 are fraught with the difficulty arising because the misprision of felonies offence has, in effect, been abolished. We must be realistic as time has moved on. Any chance for prosecution flowing from the O'Mahony report will be taken if possible.

Charles Flanagan (Laois-Offaly, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

That detracts from the Minister's statement following the publication of the report and, in effect, renders it almost meaningless.

Dermot Ahern (Louth, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I reject that because there were----

Alan Shatter (Dublin South, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Minister is ignoring the 1997 offence and he deliberately failed to refer to it then.

Dermot Ahern (Louth, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Prosecutions are still being taken against many people.

Charles Flanagan (Laois-Offaly, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Not one file was sent to the DPP following the investigation in 2002.

Dermot Ahern (Louth, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

And the report clearly outlines the difficulties in that respect.

Alan Shatter (Dublin South, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The new offence in the 1997 Act could have been used.

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

Deputy Shatter may not intervene on Priority Questions.

Alan Shatter (Dublin South, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Minister is deliberately avoiding answering the question.

Dermot Ahern (Louth, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I most certainly am not.

Charles Flanagan (Laois-Offaly, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I do not believe any prosecutions have been brought under that section.