Conor Lenihan (Dublin South West, Fianna Fail)

As the Senator will be aware, the Ryan report dealt with the dreadful abuse which took place in residential institutions, so its direct relevance to the case referred to by the Senator is not immediately apparent. In any event, the persons referred to by the Senator have, over a number of years, made a series of wide-ranging allegations against the courts, State agencies and professional and other persons.

One set of allegations alleges that one of the persons was the victim of sexual abuse by a family member. The persons are dissatisfied with the decision of the Director of Public Prosecutions not to prosecute that family member in connection with this alleged sexual abuse and with the investigation of the complaints by the Garda Síochána. The other set of allegations concerns the dissolution of the marriage of one of the persons and the disposal of the family property. They have drawn up what is described as a statement of claim against the State for an eight-figure sum and a demand for other actions by the State. The most serious allegation, which is of sexual abuse, was the subject of exhaustive investigation by the Garda Síochána. When the investigation file was complete, it was referred to the Director of Public Prosecutions who decided that a prosecution should not be entered. Following a number of subsequent reviews of the case in light of additional material submitted by the persons, the DPP reaffirmed his original decision each time. The Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions has informed the persons referred to that none of the material submitted by them was such as warranted a prosecution in relation to the original complaint of sexual offences or otherwise.

As the Senator will be aware, the role of the Garda Síochána is to investigate complaints which are made to it alleging an offence has been committed, to gather whatever evidence may be available and to submit a report to the DPP. The question of whether a particular person should be prosecuted and for what criminal offence is, as a matter of law, the sole responsibility of the DPP who is independent in the performance of his functions and makes his decision on the basis of the Garda findings viewed against the background of common and-or statute law.

The disposal of the family's property following the break-up of the marriage was the subject of litigation in the courts, as were certain family law matters which are heard in camera. The Senator will also be aware the courts are subject only to the Constitution and the law and are independent in the exercise of their judicial functions, and the conduct of any court case is a matter entirely for the presiding judge.

On 30 June 2008, the Secretary General of the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform met the persons referred to. They were accompanied by a number of people from the DUP, Sinn Féin, the UUP and others. The Secretary General undertook to consider the points made at the meeting and review the documentation in the case, although he emphasised he did not wish to raise expectations. Following a review of the documentation, which included consulting the relevant agencies where appropriate, he subsequently wrote in October 2008 to one of the persons referred to, informing her of the outcome of the review, with copies of the letter sent to the members of the DUP, Sinn Féin and the UUP who had attended the meeting. In his letter, the Secretary General said that following the process outlined, the position remained there was nothing in the documentation available or the points made orally that would enable or warrant a reconsideration of decisions made in the case over the years by agencies of the criminal justice system. In particular, there were no grounds to doubt that the courts made their judgments on the basis of the evidence put before them and in accordance with the law.

I appreciate this was not the response the persons referred to had hoped for. However, the conclusion was reached only after a very careful consideration of all the facts available. It follows from this response that there are no grounds on which compensation should be paid from public funds and there is no action required on the part of the State to take this matter further.