David Norris (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I, too, welcome the Minister of State.

This matter deals with the tragic case of a brilliant, attractive, talented young man who met his death some years ago, to the immense and continuing distress of his entire family. He took his bicycle out for a run and was knocked down by a Lithuanian heroin addict who had between 40 and 50 convictions for drugs offences and larceny on both sides of the Border. The addict was on the Interpol register as a criminal and on the PULSE system. One hour before the brilliant young man was killed, the car driven by the Lithuanian drug addict was stopped at a Garda checkpoint. Since there was no insurance on the car and a series of other complicating factors, including the fact that the driver was on PULSE and the Interpol register, he should have been stopped and arrested. He simply should not have been allowed to continue to drive the car. Had appropriate Garda action been taken, the young man, who had so much to give to his family and this country, would be alive today.

There was a series of other complicating factors. We are addressing the repercussions of the incident today. There was a catalogue of Garda malpractice. I wrote to the former Minister, Deputy Shatter, about it and received an emollient reply. He expressed sympathy for the family and his letter was understanding, but he distanced himself from the matter and said that, because of the separation of powers, there was no way in which he, as Minister, could interfere. Thus, he denied responsibility. That negated any opportunity I had of doing what I had intended to do - that is, to raise the matter on the Adjournment. If the Minister has no responsibility in this matter, it cannot be raised in the House. The current Minister has acceded to the establishment an independent review panel to consider the activity of the Garda in Cavan-Monaghan, which I very much welcome, but the chairman of this panel is the senior counsel who represented the Lithuanian drug addict, Mr. Gridziuska. Both senior and junior counsel were supplied free of charge by the State to the drug addict, whereas no such provision was made for the family of the bereaved. There is an extraordinary lack of co-ordination.

I wish to draw the attention of the Minister of State to a parallel case that we all know about - namely, that of Ms Savita Halappanavar, who died tragically in hospital. An inquiry was established that involved one of the hospital consultants who had treated Ms Halappanavar. Ms Halappanavar's husband, Praveen, objected to this and, as a result, the consultant, without any impugnment of his reputation, was removed from the inquiry because of a perception of a conflict of interest. This is exactly what we are dealing with in the case I am raising. The family of the deceased is outraged that the man who, as senior counsel, represented the Lithuanian drug addict is now the chairman of what is supposed to be an independent review panel. I do not in any sense impugn the reputation or conduct of the barrister. In law, people represent those they are appointed to represent, and do so to the best of their ability. The barrister in question did a very good job - a tragically good job - for the Lithuanian, the man he was representing, but that is what his function was. However, there is a clear perception of a conflict of interest. How can somebody who professionally represented a criminal responsible for the death of a young man be seen as a proper person to conduct the inquiry? He should be removed and distanced from this section of the inquiry. At least, the Minister should undertake that the barrister will have no role to play in the conduct of the inquiry.

Transparency International, two Dáil Deputies and solicitors representing the family have written to the Minister objecting to this gentleman's appointment to this position.

I had a useful reply from the Minister in the past few days but she draws attention to a European Union directive that she is transposing and hopes to have in by November. She states that it requires every member state to give all victims of crime information, support and protection and that the directive provides that the victim should receive appropriate information about their case, have access to victim support services and so on. A further provision states that the victim may be accompanied by a person of their choice for interviews with police. That is not a satisfactory reply. It is the mildest possible provision that one can be accompanied to a police station and get information. We have that already. I ask that this gentleman, with no slur cast on his reputation, should be distanced or removed from this inquiry.