Pádraig Mac Lochlainn (Donegal North East, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

51. To ask the Minister for Justice and Equality if she is aware of the severe criticism of the resource and process limitations of the Independent Review Mechanism tasked with examining allegations of malpractice in An Garda Síochána; and if she is considering a new independent process or recourse for concerned citizens or families. [42497/15]

Pádraig Mac Lochlainn (Donegal North East, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

As the Minister knows there is severe criticism of the limitations, resourcing and so on of the Independent Review Mechanism. Is the Minister considering a new independent process that is much more rigorous and adequately resourced to deal with the very serious concerns and allegations of families across the State?

Frances Fitzgerald (Dublin Mid West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Government decided to establish the Independent Review Mechanism, IRM, in order to bring an independent examination to bear on allegations of wrong-doing by gardaí. This initiative went far beyond anything which any previous Government has done and was a genuine effort to have an independent examination of many cases which Deputies had on their desks, were concerned about and which were brought to the attention of various people. It was not established as a commission of inquiry or investigation. Its purpose was to triage the allegations to see whether further action was needed and what that action would be. It was open to the IRM to suggest any form of statutory inquiry it thought might be necessary and the gardaí and others cooperated fully with it.

The panel has provided recommendations to me in all 320 cases submitted to it and has therefore largely concluded its work. I am sure I will receive several other cases shortly. I started sending out letters on 29 June. To date, 298 complainants have been notified of the outcome of the review of their cases. Letters will continue to issue.

I have accepted the recommendations of counsel in all cases and this outcome will be communicated to all complainants; and I have previously assured Deputies where further investigation is recommended by the review that will occur. There are quite a number of recommendations in the various cases.

Some complainants may not be satisfied with the outcome of the review of their complaint. The crucial point, however, is that every case has been reviewed by independent counsel, who will have made an objective recommendation to me and the letter I have sent out has been overseen by a judge. I did not summarise the advice, it came to me and a judge was satisfied with the way we were communicating with people.

The cases referred ranged considerably from tragic deaths to property disputes. There were many that did not fall within the criteria laid down; they were not particularly about Garda behaviour. With respect to the cases for which the panel has recommended no further action by the Minister, it should be noted that the reasons for this recommendation vary greatly but include the fact that the complaint disclosed no allegation of any wrongdoing by the gardaí; the case related to the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions, which is independent of the Minister in relation to decisions as to whether or not a prosecution is warranted; or the case related to the courts, which are also independent. There are many cases which have already been through the courts, up to the highest level of court, and have been through the Garda Síochána Ombudsman Commission, GSOC. Where the recommendation was for further action, I have acted in all instances on that. They vary quite considerably.

Pádraig Mac Lochlainn (Donegal North East, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I have no doubt that many of the 320 complaints were not valid but a significant number are. I have met some of the families and the cases are appalling. I have five or six cases here but I was struck by a new one that came to me yesterday. Other Members would have received the letter too. The family's comment says it all. They were utterly dismayed at the review. No one spoke to them, no one asked them for any information and they know from a query to a named body that the files were not requested from the panel. How can the Minister stand over a review mechanism that does not even talk to the people concerned, does not ask for more clarification or documentation and does not go to the body concerned to read the original files and make a recommendation to her?

How can Members of these Houses stand over this process and call it an independent review to deal with the scale of concerns some of these families have about appalling experiences? I ask the Minister to stand over what the correspondent wrote, namely, that no one had spoken to the family and that no one had asked them for any information. Moreover, no one has approached the agency and looked for the case files, yet the panel made a recommendation to the Minister and she stands over it.

Frances Fitzgerald (Dublin Mid West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I do stand over this process because it is the first time any Government has taken a series of cases about which Deputies, Senators and others have concerns and brought them together. As I stated, it was never intended to be a commission of investigation. The Deputy may give the details of a particular case in the Chamber, but what the Government decided to do and what I did as Minister was to set up a completely independent process in which the cases were looked at independently by legal counsel, examined and triaged to ascertain whether there was further action one could appropriately recommend to me as Minister that should be taken on them. That is a completely independent process. I made it absolutely clear from the outset that it was a review of all the data available. If the panel had further questions or needed information from other bodies, it could ask them or get it. A huge number of individuals provided further information and that is one reason the process took longer than I thought it would take. It was then necessary to give that information to the panel which in quite a number of cases considered further information received. Moreover, in quite a number of cases, for example, a report under section 41(2) of the Garda Síochána Act has been requested. In many cases, there has been a referral to the Garda Síochána Ombudsman Commission, GSOC, under section 102(5) of the Garda Síochána Act. There has also been a general review of Garda practice and procedures under the Garda Síochána Act. A series of recommendations have been made and acted on. While I cannot discuss individual cases, some of the cases the Deputy may be discussing may have been through a range of court processes-----

Michael Kitt (Galway East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I must call Deputy Pádraig Mac Lochlainn.

Frances Fitzgerald (Dublin Mid West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

-----but the person concerned is not satisfied with the outcome. Unless one were to establish an altogether separate process for each of the cases, this is an independent process and it is the first time anyone has set up such a process.

Pádraig Mac Lochlainn (Donegal North East, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

When this process commenced, I had hopes for it, but I have no confidence in it now. I find it unbelievable Members of the Oireachtas are being asked to stand over an independent review mechanism that does not speak to the people who make allegations, does not seek further information and does not visit the bodies about which allegations sometimes are made to seek access to files. How can this be a review over which Members of these Houses can stand?

To be clear, I have stated many times that the vast majority of the men and women of An Garda Síochána during the years have been of the highest standing, that is, they have been wonderful people who have served the State. However, a tiny minority have been a disgrace to it and when people have and abuse power, the consequences can be devastating for families. It is alleged that members of An Garda Síochána colluded in the murder of people's loved ones, covered up and did not properly investigate, with devastating consequences for the families concerned. They had hope that, at last, the wall of bureaucracy would come down and that this process could start to get answers for them and put serious pressure on those who had abused their power. Instead, there was another layer of bricks on that wall of bureaucracy. They are devastated by their experience of the review panel which has been a failure for the cohort of cases that are genuine. The process might have cleared out a pile of cases that were not genuine; that is fine and let those cases be cleared out. However, there is a cohort of serious cases in which citizens of the State were abused and failed by some in power who were a disgrace to the uniform.

Michael Kitt (Galway East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am sorry, Deputy-----

Pádraig Mac Lochlainn (Donegal North East, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am asking the Minister to please look back again at some of these cases and offer those concerned a ray of hope because they are in despair.

Frances Fitzgerald (Dublin Mid West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I must state again to the Deputy that this was neither a commission of investigation nor a tribunal. It was a genuine attempt to look with a wide lens because all of the approximately 350 cases referred to the Department were taken into account.

I think the Deputy accepts they covered a very wide range of issues, including property disputes, probate issues, disputes between neighbours, dissatisfaction with the outcome of civil and criminal court actions, decisions of the DPP and outcomes of investigations by GSOC.

In the cases the Deputy is describing, he is talking about a particular cohort. All of the cases were looked at previously in detail. If there was evidence or a route forward in terms of further action that could be taken, it would be recommended to me by this panel. There were no limits in what it could recommend. It could and would have done that. The Deputy has said that some of the people who received the letters were dissatisfied. I understand what he is saying, but many of these cases go back to before 1969. Quite a large number of them are before 2000. There is a sort of historical dissatisfaction with particular cases. I completely understand how people who have lost a loved one in tragic circumstances continually try to get to the bottom of that, the reason it happened and who was involved.

In many of these cases they have been through the courts. That process has been carried out. If the people reviewing this wanted me to have a commission of inquiry, a further inquiry or a statutory inquiry, they could have recommended this. If they do in any of these cases, I will, of course, act on it because I have accepted every single recommendation. There has been no interference and in fact I have gone further than that. I have asked a judge to oversee the letters going out so that there is no dilution of the recommendation by me or my Department. Of course, there would be no intention to do that, but I introduced that separate safeguard when it was raised here in the House.