Written answers

Thursday, 2 April 2015

Department of Justice and Equality

Independent Review Mechanism

Photo of Mick WallaceMick Wallace (Wexford, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

21. To ask the Minister for Justice and Equality in view of the fact that the independent review mechanism is not conducting full investigations into the cases but rather assessing whether they merit full investigation, the reason it is taking so long; when the findings of the assessments will be published; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [13396/15]

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

This Government, as part of its response to the report by Seán Guerin SC, took the initiative to have an independent review carried out of the allegations of Garda misconduct which had been submitted to my Department, to the Office of the Taoiseach and a number of other public representatives. This unprecedented decision was taken with a view to getting an objective and independent legal view on whether further action might be warranted in any case.

As the Deputy is aware, a panel consisting of two senior and five junior counsel was established for that purpose, all selected on the basis of their experience of the criminal justice system. The independent review is ongoing and 318 cases have been referred to the Panel. The volume and complexity of cases has led to the review taking longer than originally anticipated, but it is important that counsel take the time necessary to consider each case fully and carefully. Counsel are making every effort to conclude their work as soon as is reasonably practicable.

The review in each case consists of an examination of the papers by independent counsel, who then make a recommendation as to whether any further action might be taken. I know that some Deputies have argued that the review should have involved interviews with the complainants and other relevant persons, but with respect I think that is to misunderstand this process. The purpose of the review is to triage the allegations to see if further investigations are needed. To have required counsel to hold hearings where they would interview everyone concerned would in effect have been to hold full-scale investigations into over 300 cases, without having made any attempt to see if this was necessary or practical. In view of the fact that it was thought that the review might be completed within three months it was clear that the process did not envisage hearings or interviews. The fact that it is taking longer is due to the higher number of cases than originally notified, the complexity of some of those cases and the fact that counsel have their other commitments to their clients and the courts.

I would assure the Deputy that where further investigation is recommended by the review then that will occur. However I would also make the point again that in many cases, counsel may recommend that no further action can reasonably be taken. This might be, for example, because a case has already been through due process, such as an investigation by GSOC or a court hearing, even though the complainant remains unhappy with the outcome. The crucial point, however, is that every case will have been reviewed by independent counsel, who will have made an objective recommendation.

The Panel has made significant progress and the submission of recommendations to me is being prepared by officials. Each recommendation will be very carefully considered, but as a matter of general principle let me say quite clearly that, in coming to a decision in each case, I will be very strongly guided by the independent advice of counsel. Quite clearly having engaged counsel for this review, it would be entirely appropriate to be guided by their advice. There will be no undue delay in the process of notifying complainants of the outcome of the reviews, a process which I expect will start shortly.

Comments

No comments

Log in or join to post a public comment.