Inquiry into conduct of gardai should be released

A little over a year ago the Special Criminal Court made very serious observations about the conduct of gardai involved in the case of Paul Ward, who was convicted on charges related to the murder of Veronica Guerin.

In the course of its judgment, the Special Criminal Court rejected Garda evidence that Paul Ward had made admissions during an interrogation. It did so, in part, because although Garda witnesses claimed that they had made a contemporaneous note of the admissions, gardai who interviewed Paul Ward several hours afterwards were entirely unaware that the "admissions" had been made. This was so even though such "admissions" would have represented a sensational breakthrough in the investigation into the murder of Veronica Guerin.

The court said: "This indicates either incredible disorganisation in the murder investigation, despite the fact there was a continuously manned incident room at Lucan Garda station or there was no memorandum of the [Garda] interview [during which the "admissions" were made] at the time and it came into existence later".

Following the judgment, the Garda Commissioner announced that there would be an inquiry into the observations of the court. The inquiry could have come up with one of three possible conclusions. The first could have been that there was indeed incredible disorganisation in the murder investigation, which we had been told was the most thoroughgoing, the most relentless and the best-resourced in the history of the State.

If this investigation was incredibly disorganised, the officers responsible should be disciplined and procedures put in place to ensure that such would never happen again. And we should have been told that.

THE second possible outcome of such an inquiry could have been that the memorandum of the interview with Paul Ward was not composed contemporaneously with the interview but did indeed come into existence at a later time.

If this was so, serious questions would have arisen about the conduct of certain gardai in the case. Again, a review of procedures would have been called for and again we, the public, should be informed of what had gone on and what was being done about it.

The third possible outcome could have been that the Special Criminal Court got it all wrong, that there was a third explanation from the apparent contradiction in the evidence presented and that nothing at all was amiss. If this is so, we should certainly be informed, for it would allay public disquiet arising form the remarks of the presiding judge in the Special Criminal Court in the case.

Two days ago I asked the Garda press office what inquiries had been conducted by the Garda authorities into the observations of the court this matter. The following was the official response:

"The Garda Commissioner did appoint, at the time, Assistant Commissioner Kevin Carty to carry out a review following the remarks of the court in that case. The review was completed and the Assistant Commissioner reported back to the Commissioner. At no time during the review was any evidence gathered which would lead to disciplinary inquiries against any gardai. No gardai were disciplined."

Yesterday I asked to see the report of the inquiry and was told, in effect, to get lost. This was a matter for the Commissioner, the report was intended for him and not for the general public. I said the police force was the property of the public and not the property of the Commissioner and that we had a right to know what the inquiry had discovered. The response was: "That may well be so, but the report is not being released."

So we are not entitled to know which of the only three possible explanations for what happened was established by the inquiry, that is, if anything was established by the inquiry.

We are left with the impression that a situation in which there was "either incredible disorganisation in the murder investigation" or that a memorandum which was claimed under oath to have been composed at one time was in fact composed at another time, is OK. Nothing at all wrong.

While Assistant Commissioner Carty is a distinguished officer, and his career has been beyond reproach, one is entitled to wonder what credibility can be attached to the press office version of his report which states that "at no time during the review was there any evidence gathered which would lead to disciplinary enquiries". Would not the judgment of the court itself have suggested that there should be a disciplinary inquiry, or is the attitude of the Garda authorities to the findings of our courts entirely dismissive if they dislike what the court says?

Amazing, isn't it, and apparently the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform has no concerns about what went on either. The same Department was the subject of other bemused comment recently, by the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman and Degrading Treatment or Punishment.

The committee reported just before Christmas that an 89-year-old man had been held in one of our custodial institutions, without trial, since 1937. He has never been convicted of any wrongdoing, he is not deemed a danger to himself or to others, yet he is held in custody.

The man is in the Central Mental Hospital in Dundrum, Dublin. In a commentary on the report, the Government fails to offer any specific justification for the continued incarceration of this man or for the failure to review his case over the years.

The CPT report also mentions a number of other instances where people have been held in custody for periods ranging between 25 and 38 years, and where, again, they have never been convicted of any offence.

In all of these cases, the people were initially incarcerated having been charged with an offence and then were deemed unfit to plead. But they have been held in custody for periods far longer than any period for which they would have been imprisoned had they been convicted of the original charge. And, apparently, that's OK as well.