Catherine Murphy (Kildare North, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

481. To ask the Tánaiste and Minister for Justice and Equality if his attention has been drawn to the particulars of a case concerning a prison officer on unpaid leave from the Irish Prison Service since May 2011 (details supplied); if he will engage with the person on the matters concerned; if he has received a protected disclosure in respect of the person; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [18964/19]

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

I can inform the Deputy that correspondence has recently been received in my Department regarding an allegation relating to the Irish Prison Service, citing the Protected Disclosures Act. This matter is the subject of a preliminary assessment at present, and as the matter is being treated as a protected disclosure it would not be appropriate for me to comment on the individual case.

Catherine Murphy (Kildare North, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

482. To ask the Tánaiste and Minister for Justice and Equality if his attention has been drawn to the particulars of a case concerning a former prison officer; if he or his predecessors have received a protected disclosure in respect of a person (details supplied); and if he will make a statement on the matter. [18966/19]

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

I can inform the Deputy that in 2016 issues raised by the person in question were the subject of an assessment in accordance with my Department’s Protected Disclosures Policy.

Aspects of these matters had been the subject of correspondence and other contact over a number of years, and had previously been considered and responded to. Concerns raised by the person in question were also considered under the Independent Review Mechanism (IRM) established to review certain allegations of Garda misconduct, or inadequacies in the investigation of certain allegations, and the outcome of the IRM process was communicated to them.

The 2016 assessment concluded there was insufficient detail in the correspondence as set out to enable further investigation to take place, and for the concerns raised to be evaluated. The person in question was invited to provide the necessary information but this was not forthcoming and it was concluded that it was not possible to take the examination further.