Sir, - You are to be congratulated on highlighting (January 23rd) one of the great miscarriages of justice this century: the unfair dismissal of Mr William Geary from the Garda Siochana over 70 years ago. Having broken the story for the Limerick Leader in November 1977 and campaigned for Mr Geary's exoneration with journalistic vigour for some years, it is heartening that The Irish Times should now seek to publicise this gross injustice.
The expression: "Justice delayed is justice denied" is a lion that roars throughout most of this century as far as Mr Geary is concerned. You are to be commended for editorially pressing that case. Credit is also due your reporter Margaret Ward whose thorough article not only captured the atmospherics of a wronged Irish patriot - in exile - but also the essential character of a remarkable man.
It was particularly encouraging to read that your efforts forced the Government, out of a sense of decency, to finally release the file containing details of Mr Geary's dismissal - an objective originally sought in 1986 by myself and Cllr Frank Prendergast (who as TD subsequently raised the matter in the Dail). That in itself represents a breakthrough in Mr Geary's long quest for access to the details of his dismissal.
Professor Walsh's report is, I believe, a compelling argument for the Government to acknowledge that Mr Geary was not, because of the flouting of dismissal regulations by the Garda authorities, validly dismissed. His intriguing point (missed by previous legal counsel is amplified by the suggestion that, because of this fundamental breach, the issue is not whether or not Mr Geary accepted a bribe, but rather that he was or was not "afforded the basic rights of any citizen in a democracy based on the rule of law . . ."
Legally, this is powerful, if not persuasive and incontrovertible stuff. Because Mr Geary's accusers failed to observe due process, thus denying him his basic democratic rights, the charge should be acknowledged by government as invalid. Put simply: the charge never had any legal existence to begin with, and must therefore be thrown out on a technicality.
Such a move would indeed be welcome. But it should be re-emphasised that Mr Geary has spent most of his life endeavouring, through whatever peripheral means, to prove his innocence. It might serve to expiate the sins of previous Governments, and in the process satisfy legality. But it would not satisfy Mr Geary, nor resolve the moral dilemma. The mere removal of an invalid charge might gratify latter-day conscientious government. What is not removed, however, is the imposition of a persona of guilt, or the stain from the character of a man whose track record is, from a local, social, moral and religious perspective, nothing less than impeccable. The long lapse of time has now made it virtually impossible to conclusively remove that stain in a court of law, or by formal Government inquiry, since all the parties to the charge are long deceased, not least of all David Neligan, the superintendent instrumental in Mr Geary's dismissal. No matter the impeccable nature of Mr Geary's character, a court of inquiry would be loathe to exonerate on the basis of one man's unprovable word. Having said that, a powerful testimony must be the blatant fact that only a mind given up to delusion, or for that matter, insanity, would protest innocence for three-quarters of a century. If it were guilty. And Mr Geary, despite his longevity, is still the most lucid of men!
It follows that since Mr Geary cannot ever be proven guilty by any court of inquiry that he should, in accordance with the basic tenets of democratic justice (innocent till proven guilty and not the other way round) be given the benefit of the reasonable doubt the rest of us enjoy and take for granted.
In doing so, the government should not simply confine itself to legalities by acknowledging the invalidity of the charge, but should also grasp the moral imperative by acknowledging the innocence of the man. - Yours, etc., J. Vincent Moran,
Slough, Berks SL2 5XA, England.