The Minister for Justice, Michael McDowell, was accused by Labour leader Pat Rabbitte last night of being "at sixes and sevens" in his response to the collapse of the Dermot Laide retrial in the light of his announcement that he was now giving "active consideration" to having State pathologists work in pairs.
On Monday, Mr McDowell insisted that it would not be possible for the State "to double up" with pathologists, fingerprint experts etc. "Not only would they have to turn up together to every crime scene at the same time, they would also have to agree on everything," he said, expressing fear at the prospect of numerous legal challenges.
However, responding to a Dáil adjournment debate last night Mr McDowell said he would examine the option of allowing State pathologists to operate in pairs, so as to allow for a fall-back witness in the event of one not being available.
"This approach, which I understand is that applied in Scotland, is certainly worth considering but is not that which applies in England and Wales or indeed in Northern Ireland. So we will also need to look at how this issue is approached in those systems. . ."
He said the Scottish approach might give rise to complications in the event of divergence on the part of the experts concerned, but he intended to raise the issues with State Pathologist Dr Marie Cassidy.
Mr Rabbitte accused the Minister of changing his mind on the issue of two pathologists from Monday to Tuesday, and he also claimed there were clear differences between Mr McDowell and the Taoiseach in their response to the collapse of the Murphy case in the light of the inability of former State pathologist Prof John Harbison to give evidence.
"I cannot remember any issue on which Government members have become so clearly, rapidly and chaotically at sixes and sevens, both as between themselves and, in Minister McDowell's case, as between his views at one minute and then again a minute later," said Mr Rabbitte.
Mr McDowell rejected a claim by Mr Rabbitte that he had been given information some time ago that would have led him to believe that testimony in any other case given by Prof Harbison was unreliable.
"It is wholly wrong to suggest that the Government are at sixes and sevens on the outcome of this case. The case is one in which the DPP has charge and responsibility. The Department of Justice is not involved in cases of this type and is not in a position to answer detailed questions about the case or its progress."