Tag Archives: Disclosures Tribunal

Disclosures Tribunal timeline

The trail of allegations both contaminated and uncontaminated against Garda whistleblower Sergeant Maurice McCabe revealed during the course of the Disclosures Tribunal to date.

Anon writes:

You’re doing a terrific job reporting on and keeping track of the Disclosures Tribunal. Thanks to all involved!

I was trying to explain events to a friend the other night and came up with this timeline graph (above). Might be a handy visualization for any lost in the who’s who.

Previously: The Disclosures Tribunal on Broadsheet

Clockwise from top left: Retired Assistant Commissioner Kieran Kenny, Sgt Maurice McCabe and Inspector Noel Cunningham

Today.

At the Disclosures Tribunal.

Judge Peter Charleton made the suggestion that if there was a meeting about the Leonardo da Vinci painting the Mona Lisa, and if Leonardo Da Vinci “was around”, the person organising the meeting would likely ask Mr Da Vinci to attend.

Mr Charleton raised the suggestion while Assistant Commissioner Kieran Kenny was giving evidence about a meeting which he organised in July 2014 in Mullingar Garda Station.

This meeting took place after Mr Kenny learned, in May 2014, that a rape allegation had been wrongly made against Sgt Maurice McCabe on documentation circulating between RIAN counselling, Tusla and An Garda Siochana.

Readers will recall that it was Insp Noel Cunningham who carried out the original investigation into Ms D’s claim of inappropriate touching in 2006, it was sent to the DPP and it was dismissed.

Judge Charleton made the point about Leonarda da Vinci in an effort to get an explanation from Mr Kenny as to why he didn’t invite Inspector Noel Cunningham to the meeting.

The judge asked: “Why wasn’t Noel Cunningham contacted? I can’t understand.”

Judge Charleton described Insp Cunningham’s original investigation as “highly competent, balanced, very, very thorough”. He went on to suggest it was a “model investigation” and that nobody would have known more about the 2006/2007 investigation than Insp Cunningham.

Mr Kenny said he had not “no issue” with Insp Cunningham’s investigation.

Judge Charleton asked if Mr Cunningham was ostracised and if there was something that he [Judge Charleton] wasn’t aware of. He wanted to know why he was excluded.

Mr Kenny: said: “I didn’t exclude him, I just didn’t include him.”

Why does this matter?

Readers will note that the tribunal has heard it was Mr Kenny who, according to evidence given to date, was the final link in the chain regarding the journey of a false rape allegation against Sgt Maurice McCabe from RIAN counselling service, to Tusla, to gardai and, finally, to the then acting Garda Commissioner Noirin O’Sullivan.

Readers will recall how the tribunal has already heard how, on May 14, 2014, Chief Superintendent James (Jim) Sheridan, now retired, forwarded the incorrect Tusla referral, with the false rape allegation against Sgt McCabe – which originated out of an error made by RIAN counsellor Laura Brophy in a referral to Tusla in August 2013 – to the then Assistant Commissioner Kieran Kenny.

This was on the very same day that Ms D contacted Ms Brophy  to say she had never accused Sgt McCabe of rape.

Mr Sheridan, who had previously read the file pertaining to Sgt McCabe and Ms D’s 2006 allegation before sending it to Sean Guerin SC for his scoping exercise into allegation of Garda misconduct in Cavan/Monaghan, forwarded the referral in the full knowledge that it was incorrect and without making it known to Mr Kenny that it was incorrect.

Sgt McCabe’s file contained documentation from Supt Noel Cunningham, who carried out the original investigation and documents pertaining to Supt Cunningham’s contact with the HSE about the matter.

By way of explaining his action, Mr Sheridan told the tribunal that he was seeking to understand how the mistake happened.

In addition, Chief Supt Sheridan told the tribunal that Supt Leo McGinn had told him that Mr D said the rape allegation was incorrect before he wrote his letter on May 14, 2014. Supt McGinn told the tribunal he couldn’t recall this conversation.

In any event.

This morning.

The tribunal has heard how Mr Kenny forwarded the incorrect referral to the office of the Garda Commissioner.

At that time, Noirin O’Sullivan would have been the Acting Garda Commissioner as the previous Commissioner Martin Callinan had resigned on March 25, 2014.

The tribunal heard that, similar to Mr Sheridan, Mr Kenny became aware of the 2006/2007 investigation in March 2014, as part of the discovery of documents for the Guerin inquiry. Mr Kenny agreed that he knew the 2006/2007 investigation had nothing to do with any rape allegation.

Patrick Marrinan, SC, for the tribunal, put it to Mr Kenny that he knew the referral had an error.

Mr Marrinan asked Mr Kenny why the rape allegation in the wrong referral didn’t leap off the page at him and he didn’t think ‘no, McCabe wasn’t accused of rape’?

Mr Kenny said he wasn’t sure if the incorrect referral was in fact an extension of what had been previously alleged so he wasn’t sure if it was a new allegation. He said he wasn’t sure if it was additional information to the original allegation or not.

Mr Kenny said it appeared to be a new allegation, emanating from a counselling session, and he had to consider it in terms of the “criminal aspects” of it.

“I took it as written,” Mr Kenny said.

The tribunal heard on May 16, 2014, Mr Kenny sent a letter to the Commissioner’s office [Noirin O’Sullivan], with the wrong referral attached.

The letter included the line:

“You will note that the allegation identifies the alleged perpetrator as Maurice McCabe.”

Mr Kenny was asked, while passing the matter on to Ms O’Sullivan, if he advised her that the allegation he was sending was different to the allegation of 2006.

He said: No.

The tribunal has previously heard that Mr Sheridan received an amended referral from Tusla on May 20 and that Mr Sheridan then passed this on to Mr Kenny.

But Mr Kenny never passed this on to the Garda Commissioner Noirin O’Sullivan.

Instead, after getting the amended referral from Mr Sheridan, Mr Kenny wrote back to Mr Sheridan and said he would hold a meeting in Mullingar Garda Station with Mr Sheridan and Mr McGinn in his office on Monday, June 16, at 10am. This meeting didn’t take place until July 16, 2014.

Mr Kenny was asked about what he believed needed to be investigated at this point.

He told the tribunal that, at this point, he wanted to sit down with the officers involved – Chief Supt Sheridan and Supt McGinn – to allow them to bring him up to date on all aspects of the matter and to tease them out.

The tribunal has heard that, at this time, Mr Kenny was of the understanding that no referral had been sent to the the HSE in regards to the 2006 allegation.

Mr Kenny told the tribunal:

“I don’t believe I had knowledge that a referral had been sent to HSE at that time.”

Mr Kenny added that he was relying on information from Chief Supt Sheridan that no referral had been made.

Minutes of the meeting have already been discussed at the tribunal and it’s heard that it was decided that legal advice would be sought from the Head of Legal Affairs Ken Ruane and that contact would be made with the HSE to get a further explanation as to how the error had occurred.

But neither of these things happened.

The minutes also note:

“Assistant Commissioner Kenny outlined that he was of the view that the two issues arising are that the incident was not recorded on PULSE and there was no referral made to the HSE. What we, An Garda Síochána, now have is a referral from the HSE.

“The injured party went for counselling in August 2013 at which stage she was an adult. He outlined that no referral was made to the HSE in 2006/2007, nor did any meeting take place with the HSE in 2006/2007. If there had been a referral made on the matter in 2006/2007 we would not be getting the referral now. Chief Superintendent Sheridan raised the issue of do we need to have a meeting with the HSE now.”

“Assistant Commissioner Kenny outlined at the meeting that he had concerns that the injured party went for counselling and a referral was made to the HSE and a referral was made to the Garda Síochána. He outlined that he was of the view that this referral should be dealt with as a new referral, “that we can’t just take it at the same incident”.”

Breffni Gordon BL, for Sgt McCabe, asked Mr Kenny if this meeting was an opportunity to keep the file in existence.

Mr Kenny said: “Absolutely not.”

The tribunal heard that, in the end, Mr Kenny never told the Commissioner that this referral contained an wholly unrelated rape allegation.

It also heard, the Commissioner’s office was never sent the corrected referral.

Mr Kenny told the tribunal that, right up until he made a statement to the tribunal in May of this year, he was always under the impression that an amended notification had been sent to the Commissioner.

Readers will note that this was despite further communication between Mr Kenny and the Commissioner’s private secretary Frank Walsh about the matter.

The tribunal heard of a letter Mr Walsh sent to Mr Kenny on July 17 – a day after the meeting in Mullingar, in which Mr Walsh requested an update on his letter of May 16.

Mr Walsh said:

“I am directed by the Commissioner to refer to previous correspondence from your office on 16 May 2014, in the above and to enquire on the current status of the matter.”

Judge Peter Charleton asked what happened as a consequence of that letter.

The tribunal heard that, after the meeting in Mullingar Garda Station, Mr Kenny did write back to Supt Walsh on July 28, 2014 and outlined that there had been a meeting and, at that meeting, it was decided legal advice would be sought from the Head of Legal Affairs Ken Ruane and that contact would be made with the HSE.

The last line in the letter said: “Developments will be reported”.

However, the tribunal heard from Mr Walsh that no such developments were reported even though Mr Walsh had later written a letter to Mr Kenny stating:

I am directed by the Commissioner to refer to yours of 28 July 2014, the content of which has been noted by the Commissioner.

Please report further following consultations with the Head of Legal Affairs and the HSE.

Meanwhile…

Mr Walsh also told the tribunal the incorrect Tusla referral was still in the Garda Commissioner’s office – uncorrected – when he finished his position 12 months ago.

Similar to Mr Sheridan, Mr Kenny said he viewed the error as an error by another agency and that the onus was on either Tusla, HSE or RIAN counselling to inform Sgt McCabe of the error.

He said he expected they would investigate the matter themselves and that, after that, they’d write to McCabe and tell him about it.

Previously: Who Knew What, When?

Sam Boal/Rollingnews

 


From left: Sgt Maurice McCabe and retired Chief Supt Jim Sheridan arriving at the Disclosures Tribunal this morning

This afternoon.

At the Disclosures Tribunal.

Retired Chief Superintendent Jim Sheridan, former divisional officer for Cavan-Monaghan, is giving evidence.

Readers will recall how, on May 14, 2014, Ms D told RIAN counsellor Laura Brophy that there was an allegation of rape against Sgt Maurice McCabe wrongly attributed to her in a referral that was sent to the gardaí.

Ms D contacted Ms Brophy on this date after her father, Mr D, was shown the incorrect Tusla referral by Supt Leo McGinn in “early May” and was shocked by the allegations contained.

Mr D did not notify Supt McGinn that the referral was incorrect at that time, as he had yet to speak to Ms D.

Yesterday, Supt McGinn said he believed the date he showed Mr D this referral was May 8, 2014.

In relation to Chief Superintendent Jim Sheridan, the tribunal has heard that Supt McGinn received the Tusla referral – with the wrong allegation of digital penetration – on May 7 and that this was forwarded to Chief Supt Sheridan on May 8 (the same date Mr D was shown the referral).

The tribunal has also heard that Supt McGinn and Mr D had a face-to-face meeting on May 12 where Mr D informed Supt McGinn that the referral was incorrect.

Readers should note Chief Supt Sheridan was the liaison officer with responsibility for giving documents to Sean Guerin SC who was appointed, on February 25, 2014 to investigate the Sgt McCabe’s allegations of Garda malpractice in Cavan/Monaghan.

Further to this.

This afternoon.

Chief Superintendent Jim Sheridan was asked about a letter he sent to the Assistant Commissioner Kieran Kenny on May 14, 2014 – the same day Ms D informed RIAN counsellor Laura Brophy of the mistake on her Tusla referral.

On May 14, 2014, Chief Supt Sheridan knew that the referral had an incorrect allegation.

And yet.

In his letter to Assistant Commissioner Kenny, Mr Sheridan attached the referral with the unrelated digital penetration error and said the “the allegations contained in the attached referral have been the subject of a previous Garda investigation” which resulted in the DPP directing that there be no prosecution against Sgt Maurice McCabe.

He also stated that it was his understanding that Ms D had made complaints, based on the allegations set out in the attached referral, to Fianna Fail leader Micheal Martin and GSOC.

Kathleen Leader BL, for the tribunal, asked Mr Sheridan why he didn’t tell Asst Comm Kenny that the allegation in the referral was incorrect.

Mr Sheridan said he perhaps should have but he was trying to establish how the error had occurred and Supt McGinn was communicating with the HSE.

“Perhaps in hinsight, I should have,” Mr Sheridan said.

Ms Leader said surely it was “extremely important” and “of paramount importance” that he informed his superiors that those allegations were incorrect.

He said he accepted that he should have put that acknowledgement into the letter but repeated that he was trying to establish how the error got in there in the first place.

Asked, in regards to the mention of complaints to Mr Martin and GSOC, was he of the understanding that Ms D had made complaints based on the digital penetration allegation, Mr Sheridan said no, he didn’t think that.

Once again, Ms Leader asked Mr Sheridan why he didn’t state that in the letter?

Mr Sheridan accepted that, in hindsight, he should have and said that there was no malice in his actions.

Ms Leader also asked Mr Sheridan about his knowledge of the complaints to Mr Martin and GSOC.

Mr Sheridan said he knew of the complaints based on media reports and he doesn’t recollect any official notification from GSOC.

Ms Leader put it to Mr Sheridan that, on one reading of his letter to Asst Comm Kenny, it would maybe support the theory that the incorrect allegation of rape was being deployed to more senior officers at a time when his district would more than likely be subject to a commission of inquiry – due to the fact Mr Guerin’s scoping exercise of Sgt McCabe’s allegations about Garda malpractice in the area was under way.

Mr Sheridan repeated that he was trying to find out how the error occurred.

The tribunal continues.

Earlier: Disclosures, Discrepancies And Paul Williams

From top; Maurice McCabe, Journalist Paul Williams, Detective Superintendent John O’Reilly, counsellor Laura Brophy

Today.

Is day 14 of the Disclosures Tribunal.

Earlier this week, it heard evidence from Ms D – the woman who made a complaint to gardaí against Sgt Maurice McCabe in December 2006 which was investigated by the DPP – and her parents Mr and Mrs D.

Readers will recall how the tribunal has already heard that Ms D’s complaint in December 2006 came 11 months after Mr D “lost his position and was reverted to other duties” after Sgt McCabe “caused the institution of serious disciplinary procedure against” Mr D in January 2006.

After the DPP investigated Ms D’s complaint, a letter from the DPP’s office was sent to the State solicitor for Cavan Rory Hayden on April 5, 2007, which stated:

Dear Sir,

I acknowledge receipt of your letter dates 1st March 2007 together with copy Grda investigation file.

I agree with you and the Guards, that the evidence does not warrant a prosecution. There was no admission. The incident as described by the injured party is vague. It appears that it was only when she was eleven/twelve that she decided that whatever occurred was sexual in nature.

Even if there wasn’t a doubt over her credibility, the incident that she describes does not constitute a sexual assault or indeed an assault.

Further, the account given to her cousin [redacted] differs in a number of respects to that given to her parents and the Guards.

There is no basis for a prosecution.

Readers will recall how Ms D’s 2006 allegation resurfaced during a counselling session seven years later in the summer 2013, in Cavan, with RIAN counsellor Laura Brophy.

An erroneous allegation of rape against Sgt McCabe ended up being attributed to Ms D when Ms Brophy sent a botched referral to Tusla in August 2013.

The tribunal is not re-examining Ms D’s allegation of 2006 but it is examining how her allegation became conflated with the allegation of rape and how, and if, this was circulated between RIAN, Tusla and An Garda Siochana.

The examination of this matter is part of a wider investigation into allegations of a smear campaign orchestrated by former Garda Commissioner Martin Callinan with the knowledge of the current Garda Commissioner Noirin O’Sullivan – as alleged by the former head of the Garda Press Office Supt Dave Taylor.

Journalist Paul Williams – who wrote four articles about Ms D and her 2006 allegation in April and May 2014 – also gave evidence.

Mr Williams was the only journalist to write about Ms D and her then eight-year-old allegation before it became publicly known in February of this year that a counsellor [Laura Brophy] had made the error of adding an unrelated allegation of rape in a referral to Tusla.

Readers may wish to note that Mr Williams, Ms D, and Independent News and Media (INM) share the same solicitor for the tribunal – Kieran Kelly. Mr Williams told the tribunal that he suggested Mr Kelly to the D family in February of this year.

It’s also worth recalling that Ms D claimed the 2006 allegation would have been known in the Bailieboro, Virginia area while Mr D claimed it was an open secret in the gardaí.

Others to give evidence this week included Detective Superintendent John O’Reilly, who helped put Mr D and Paul Williams in touch with each other in 2014; Superintendent Noel Cunningham, who originally investigated the 2006 allegation; and Supt Leo McGinn, who inadvertently informed Mr D of the false rape allegation attached to Laura Brophy’s incorrect referral in 2013 when he showed Mr D the referral.

Further to this…

Readers may wish to note the following discrepancies – some minor, some not so minor – and some points of interest…

The tribunal has heard how Ms D took up counselling on July 24, 2013. She explained she went as her mother encouraged her to go before she returned to college in September 2013. This, she and Mr D claimed, was because she was hearing a lot about Sgt Maurice McCabe in the media around that time.

Specifically, Ms D said:

It would have been probably around May/June [2013] time that I would have began to hear Maurice McCabe’s name being mentioned. And yes, it did, it rattled me. It was upsetting me and I do believe my mother could see that it was affecting me. She was the one who asked me if I would attend counselling again, and very reluctantly, but to keep her happy, I had agreed.

Ms D’s father said:

I know the O’Mahony report into the penalty points issue was released in May or June of ’13, so there would have been mention of — Maurice McCabe’s name would have sort of come up in the media every so often, and I noticed, and especially her mum noticed, any time Ms. D would have heard it, it made her — she got upset, she got annoyed, and I remember her mother speaking to me and saying this and saying that she would like Ms. D to go maybe to see a counsellor to make sure she had dealt with all these issues before she went back in September, back to the southeast, back to college. “

But: Sgt Maurice McCabe was not named in the national press as a Garda whistleblower until January 2014.

Ms Brophy said Ms D had two counselling sessions – on July 24, 2013 and August 8, 2013, with the purpose of the second to obtain Sgt McCabe’s identity. Ms Brophy didn’t take any notes of the second session and merely added Sgt McCabe’s identity to a form she had filled out during the first session.

But: Ms D couldn’t really recall a second session.

Laura Brophy said when she met with Ms D on July 24, 2013, she gave Ms D a Confidentiality in Counselling form, which Ms D signed on that date. Ms Brophy told the tribunal that she would usually go through that document with her clients.

She said:

“I would generally go through that document. So, I’d kind of — I would explain it and then offer it to them to read through and then ask them to sign it and then I would sign it.”

Specifically, in regards to Ms D, Ms Brophy said:

“When the issue came up that there was a possible reporting issue I would have again spoken about my need, if identifying information came up, to report [an alleged abuser to Tusla].”

But: Ms D told the tribunal:

“I honestly don’t recall it being explained to me in depth. I do know I signed the confidentiality form, but no, I don’t recall it being discussed in depth with me.”

Laura Brophy said she referred the matter to Tusla in August 2013  (without realising she had included an unrelated rape allegation) because she believed there was no Tusla referral from 2006.

But: Ms D said she told Ms Brophy that the matter had already been investigated, that the DPP had ordered that there was to be no prosecution, and that Tusla were made aware of the matter in 2006. Ms D also said she couldn’t recall Ms Brophy telling her that Tusla did not have a referral from the matter in 2006.

Mr D spoke with Detective Superintendent John O’Reilly, who knew about the 2006 allegation, about journalist Paul Williams before Ms D met Mr Williams.

In a statement to the tribunal, Mr D said:

I met John and he asked me how Ms. D was getting on with all the publicity surrounding McCabe at the time. I told him she wasn’t getting on well and I told him that we had been approached by journalists but I was cautious of them.

John said to me would she talk to a journalist that was prominent in the media, such as Paul Williams. I said I wasn’t sure but it was Ms. D’s decision, I would talk to her. I ran it by Ms. D and she knew who Paul Williams was from the media and she said she didn’t want publicity, but just to give her story.”

But: Of the same meeting, Det Supt O’Reilly told the tribunal:

And at that time there was quite a lot of newspaper articles around Sergeant McCabe, and in the course of conversation I asked Mr. D how Ms. D was, and he described how she was not in good shape, and then he went on to outline that a number of journalists had called to their home….

He then asked me did I know Paul Williams — no, sorry, Chairman, he said that Ms. D wanted to give her account but she didn’t want to go public. And I — it was kind of — it was a bit of contradictory statement of sorts, I thought, but he said that they were talking about Paul Williams, and then he said to me, do you know him? And I said, I do. He said, what do you think of him? I said, any dealings that I had with him, I found him okay. He then asked me did I have a contact number for him. I checked the phone and obviously I did. He says, can I take it from you? And I gave him the number…

Paul Williams met Ms D on March 8, 2014 and interviewed her, part of which was recorded on video. During the interview recorded on video, they discussed GSOC.

The tribunal has heard that, in the video, Paul Williams said to Ms D:

“Would this involve GSOC or the Guards themselves or who would you like to investigate this? What body are you going to complain to?”

While giving evidence, Mr Williams was asked if he spoke to Ms D about GSOC before videoing the interview and he said: No.

But: Ms D told tribunal:

I recall speaking to Paul Williams and telling him that I was very unhappy with how the investigation of my complaint was handled in 2006. There was a couple of valid reasons I had for this belief, and having explained these reasons to Paul Williams he did suggest to me, and advised me, that if I had a complaint that I wished to follow that GSOC was an avenue I could go down, yes.

After his interview with Ms D, Paul Williams told the tribunal that he shared several phone calls back and forth with the then head of the Garda Press Office Supt Dave Taylor.

Mr Williams told the tribunal he asked Supt Taylor the following questions:

Did this investigation take place?

Who was involved?

What was the decision of the DPP?

Was there an arrest?

Can you confirm if it was Inspector Noel Cunningham who was involved?

Was the allegation placed on PULSE?

Mr Williams told the tribunal that Supt Taylor told him the matter had been investigated, it went to the DPP and there were no charges. He later added: “I was told there was insufficient evidence.”

But: John Ferry BL, for Supt Taylor, told the tribunal according to Supt Taylor, the nature of the call was that Mr Williams was informing him of what happened and that Mr Williams did not ask Supt Taylor to confirm anything specific or confirm or deny any facts. Mr Ferry said:

“It is our instructions that, to the best of our client’s recollection, there was only one phone call, which occurred on the Saturday Mr Williams attended at Ms D’s house.”

“Mr Williams telephoned our client and told him that he was at Ms D’s house and had interviewed her, that Maurice McCabe had destroyed this person and that he was going to write an article that was going to be very damaging to Maurice McCabe.

Asked if Supt Taylor didn’t say anything during the call, Mr Ferry said:

Well, that Superintendent Taylor will say that he took note of what you had told him and that he passed on to his superior, who was then-Commissioner Martin Callinan, and also Deputy Commissioner O’Sullivan, by way of text message.

Paul Williams’ articles are published in the Irish Independent in April/May 2014.

Mr Williams’ first article is published in the Irish Independent, dated April 12, 2014, headlined: “Girl wants new probe into alleged sex assault by Garda“.

In this article, Ms D was claiming that 2006 investigation was a farce, that it was brushed under the carpet; that she wanted it included in the cases being reviewed by Sean Guerin SC, on foot of a dossier of alleged garda malpractice compiled by whistleblowers Maurice McCabe and John Wilson; and that she wanted a meeting with Fianna Fail leader Micheal Martin.

It also said that a Garda spokesman said he could not comment.

Mr Williams’ second article is published in the Irish Independent, dated April 15, 2014, headlined: “Alleged Garda sex victim wants to meet Martin.”

A line from the article stated:

“Yesterday, contact was made with Mr. Martin’s office in order to set up a meeting with him, and she is awaiting a response.”

It also stated that a Garda spokesman had refused to comment on the woman’s claims.

But: During the tribunal, Michael McDowell, for Sgt McCabe argued:

“So on 12th you’d said that she would be seeking a meeting, and on the 15th you publish another article increasing the pressure on Mr Martin, isn’t that right, by saying that yesterday contact was made with his office and that she was awaiting a response? Do you think that is normal journalistic activity?

“It was deceiving the reader into believing that you were a journalist reporting on events when in fact you were orchestrating events, isn’t that right?”

Mr Williams said he wasn’t orchestrating events.

On April 16, 2014, Mr Williams wrote a third article, headlined: “FF leader to meet woman at centre of claims she was abused by Garda

The article claimed Ms D had been on a downward spiral that resulted in two suicide attempts and, in describing her allegation, the article stated:

“He (the garda) was playing hide-and-seek with us, including his own children. He caught me hiding in the sitting room on my own. He closed the door and sexually assaulted me for what seemed like a long time before anyone else came into the room.”

But: The original allegation didn’t allege the closing of a door or that the sexual assualt went on for a long time.

Under cross examination, Mr McDowell put it to Sgt McCabe that gardai in the area would have known who this article was referring to; Supt Taylor would have known; members of the Government whom Mr Williams claimed were aware would have known; Detective Superintendent John O’Reilly would have known; Superintendent Leo McGinn would have known; and the station party in Bailieboro would have known.

Mr Williams argued that the article was “anonymised” but conceded: “Perhaps people close to it worked it out.”

On April 29, 2014, Ms D emailed the Garda Siochana Ombudsman Commission (GSOC) claiming her allegation of sexual assault was not properly investigated.

In her follow-up statement to GSOC on July 3, Ms D said:

“Paul Williams told me that my case had been known by a few people in senior ranks in the Gardaí and Government for some time.”

In relation to this comment, Mr Williams told the tribunal:

That, that comment came from the fact, I would have been talking to — when after I interviewed her [Ms D] I contacted Dave Taylor, told him what I was looking at, asked him questions. He made a throwaway remark that it was known in the Park, as in the Phoenix Park, and he suggested it was known in government. But it was — it was a passing comment, and I actually reported that back to her, I told her what he told me.

But: As mentioned previously, Supt Taylor has claimed there was only one phone call in relation to Ms D and the purpose of the call was for Mr Williams to inform Supt Taylor.

In addiiton, Ms D told GSOC two unsubstantiated rumours about Sgt McCabe, namely that Sgt McCabe would “hang around the girls’ secondary school in suspicious circumstances” – something Ms D told GSOC Dept Supt O’Reilly told her father, Mr D; and that a girl from Clones, Co Monaghan had made a similar allegation to Ms D, something which was told to her by Mr D.

Mr D confirmed the Clones rumour – which he said he heard from a retired garda who wasn’t named and that he “mentioned it in passing”.

But: A day after Ms D and Mr D gave evidence, Det Supt O’Reilly told the tribunal:

The first time I was aware of this was yesterday evening, and I was absolutely flabbergasted. I neither said it nor have any knowledge about it, on a personal or any other level. I have no reason to have ever said that, because as far as I’m concerned that is not true.”

Ms D met Fianna Fail leader Micheal Martin in the Dáil on April 30, 2014 – a day after Ms D emailed GSOC and the same day Sgt McCabe’s file was “randomly” plucked from a filing cabinet in Tusla in Cavan and Laura Connolly sent a Garda notification with a false rape allegation mixed up with Ms D’s retrospective claim from 2006.

On that same day, Ms Connolly opened intake forms on four of Sgt McCabe’s children – two of whom were over the age of 18 at the time so were no longer children.

Mr Williams told the tribunal Ms D asked him to organise this meeting with Mr Martin. At different stages, he said:

“She [Ms D] asked me to make contact with Micheál Martin’s office.”

“I was asked to make the initial contact.”

“…she asked me would I set it up, and I did.”

But: Ms D told the tribunal that, while Mr Williams didn’t put her up to anything, it was Mr Williams who suggested or advised she meet Mr Martin. She said:

Paul Williams informed me that it was Micheál Martin who brought the dossier of cases that Maurice McCabe was complaining about to the attention of the Dáil, so I felt, I felt that my case was not investigated properly and I feel my case was more serious than some of the cases that were brought to the Dáil’s attention and therefore I could not understand why my case could not be included in this dossier of cases. And I was advised to meet with Micheál Martin and explain my situation with Micheál Martin and see could he perhaps get my case to be included.”

“…he said to me that it was Micheál Martin who brought Maurice McCabe’s cases to the attention of the Dáil and it would be good if you could meet with him and explain why you want your case to be included.”

“…Absolutely nobody prompted me. And I would just like to clarify that Paul did not put me up to going to speak with anyone. He suggested that it may be something that would help as I was very, very frustrated at how my case had been handled and that these were possible people that may be able to get my case to be included in the dossier of cases that were being re-examined.”

Mr Williams told the tribunal that he gave Ms D a lift from the train station to the Dail, where she met Mr Martin, and then dropped her back to the train station. He said they didn’t discuss what she would say before the interview.

But: Ms D, in her evidence, couldn’t remember Mr Williams giving her a lift.

Paul Williams’s fourth article on Ms D was published on May 3, 2014, headlined: “Kenny to set up probe into Garda sex abuse claims?”

It claimed that then Taoiseach Enda Kenny was expected to order an investigation into Ms D’s allegations.

But: Under cross examination, Mr McDowell asked Mr Williams: “Had any Taoiseach spokesman or any person told you that he was going to carry out an investigation into Ms. D’s — or an investigation into Ms. D’s allegation?”

Mr Williams replied: “Ms D was convinced from Mr Martin’s response that Enda Kenny would order an investigation into her allegations.”

On June 17, 2014, Ms D met with Fine Gael TD Alan Shatter, who had just recently stepped down from his role as Minister for Justice over the Garda controversies at the time. Readers will recall the rape error on Sgt McCabe’s file was discovered in May 2014.

Of this meeting, Paul Williams told the tribunal:

“I think in June Ms D asked me would I get in touch with Mr. Shatter. At this stage he was gone from justice, he had resigned. “

Asked why he was organising this meeting, he said:

“Because she asked me.”

But: Ms D told the tribunal:

It was Paul Williams contacted me and told me that he had been in touch with him and that he was aware of the situation and aware that I wanted my case to be included in the Guerin Report and that he wanted to speak with me about the matter.”

And in a statement to GSOC, she said:

Within the last two weeks Paul Williams contacted me and said that Alan Shatter had asked to meet me. Paul Williams told me that my case had been known by a few people in senior ranks in the Gardaí and Government for some time. I met Alan Shatter in the Merrion Hotel on Tuesday 17th June. He wanted to speak about my case and told me he was speaking before the Dáil on Thursday and wanted to mention my case to see if it could be fitted into the new investigation that had been conducted in cases in the Cavan-Monaghan area.”

Similar to when Ms D met Micheal Martin, the tribunal heard Mr Williams also met Ms D on the day she met Mr Shatter. Mr Williams said he couldn’t recall him and Ms D having a conversation about the matter.

On May 14, 2014: Ms D informs Laura Brophy of the mistake she made in regards to the rape allegation being added to her referral.

Laura Brophy tells the tribunal of notes of telephone calls that they shared after Ms D made her aware of the rape mistake

But: Ms D has no recollection of any phonecalls

Laura Brophy wrote a letter of apology to Ms D on May 16, 2014

But: Ms D told the tribunal she never got the letter and didn’t see it until the tribunal investigation.

Readers will recall how the tribunal has already heard how Mr D was shown the incorrect Tusla referral by Supt Leo McGinn in “early May”. He couldn’t recall the specific date.

This was his statement he gave the tribunal:

“Early May, my superintendent, Leo McGinn, asked me did I have a minute. I went into his office. He handed me a HSE referral form and asked ‘is that your lassie? I said ‘yeah, that is her’. I saw the detail of the allegation, digital penetration. I couldn’t believe it. I got a fierce shock. I couldn’t think straight. I felt had she told the counsellor this and not told us. Had this actually happened. She had maybe told the counsellor but had not told us. I was sick to my stomach. I couldn’t wait to get out of the office.”

I didn’t say anything to Leo McGinn as I didn’t know what was going on.”

Meanwhile…

Yesterday Supt McGinn told the tribunal that when he received a notification from Tusla, on May 7, 2014, that a woman known as ‘Ms D’ had made an allegation to counsellor Laura Brophy about Sgt McCabe, he decided that the original investigation should be reviewed by someone outside the Cavan-Monaghan division.

This botched notification – with the unrelated allegation of rape – was sent by Laura Connolly after she randomly selected it from a filing cabinet on April 30, 2014.

The tribunal heard that Supt McGinn didn’t realise that the 2013 allegation was different to the 2006 allegation and that he sent a note to Chief Supt James Sheridan on the same day he received the referral.

The Irish Times reports:

He [McGinn] said he took no directions from anyone before writing his recommendation. He told Mr McGuinness [for the tribunal] that he thought it was the day afterwards that he showed the notification to the complainant’s father, ‘Mr D’.

Readers will recall that Ms Brophy made a note of a phone call that Ms D apparently made to her on May 16, 2014.

Ms D told the tribunal:

In the documents I received I can see there was a note made by her that a call was placed I believe on 16th of May, in which I informed her that Superintendent Leo McGinn had still not been informed of the error.

And Mr D told the tribunal – in response to a question about if or when he informed Supt McGinn of the mistake:

Chairman, at the time — my feelings at the time, I was so relieved that she told me that it wasn’t her and we’d said obviously this has been a mistake. Now, I don’t remember — what I recollect was that I — I would have contacted Leo McGinn and told him that this was incorrect, this referral was incorrect…

I don’t remember [when he told McGinn], and I have seen — I have seen documentation since from Laura Brophy to say that Ms. D rang her. Now, I asked Ms. D and Ms. D says she doesn’t recall it. I don’t recall saying that to Ms. D.

The tribunal also heard that on May 22, the Chief Supt Sheridan wrote a letter to Assistant Commissioner Kieran Kenny, copied to Supt McGinn, in which he said the May 7th referral contained incorrect information and that the corrected version contained no new information and therefore did not require any further action.

Yet.

On July 16, 2016 a meeting took place in Mullingar to discuss the May referral and the Tusla error. At the meeting were Assistant Commissioner Kieran Kenny, Chief Supt Sheridan and Supt Leo McGinn, from Baileboro.

Supt Noel Cunningham – who investigated the 2006 allegation at the time and who worked in same office as Chief Supt Sheridan – was not there.

At the meeting it was decided that contact with the HSE would be made and that legal advice would be taken.

Minutes of the meeting were sent to the Garda Commissioner’s office at Garda headquarters in Phoenix Park.

Today Chief Superintendent James Sheridan (retired); Inspector Pat O’Connell; Assistant Commissioner Kieran Kenny (retired); Sergeant Duffy; and Superintendent Frank Walsh will give evidence.

Related: Was whistleblower status the real reason for meeting of top brass? (Michael Clifford, Irish Examiner)

Previously: ‘That’s Not True Chairman’

‘Tearing The Garda Family Apart’

No Recollection

Another Day, Another Error

Disclosures Tribunal: At A Glance

‘There Isn’t An Error In His Favour’

Meanwhile, At Dublin Castle

DIsclosures Tribunal: Day Two

Rollingnews

From top: Garda whistleblower Sergeant Maurice McCabe with his wife Lorraine; Journalist Paul Williams (centre) arriving at the Disclosures Tribunal this morning

This morning.

At the Disclosures Tribunal in Dublin Castle.

Following on from the evidence that Ms D gave yesterday about how she had given an interview – part of which was videoed – to journalist and broadcaster Paul Williams in March 2014.

And how this interview led to a series of articles written by Mr Williams in the Irish Independent in April and May 2014.

The series of articles pertained to Ms D’s 2006 allegations but did not identify Sgt Mcabe.

At the beginning of his evidence, Mr Williams said he wasn’t aware of the rape allegation that was wrongly attributed to Sgt McCabe until February of this year.

He said he read it in the media and he didn’t see RTE’s Prime Time – which outlined the sequence of events  in February 2017 after the matter was raised in the Dáil – as he was out of the country at the time.

The tribunal heard that after Mr Williams’ interview with Ms D he was in telephone contact with the then head of the Garda Press Office Supt Dave Taylor.

Mr Williams told the tribunal that he asked Supt Taylor several questions, including:

Did this investigation take place?

Who was involved?

What was the decision of the DPP?

Was there an arrest?

Can you confirm if it was Inspector Noel Cunningham who was involved?

Was the allegation placed on PULSE?

Mr Williams explained that the question referring to Insp Cunningham was “one of the problems Ms D had”.

Mr Williams told the tribunal that Supt Taylor confirmed to him that an allegation had been made against Sgt McCabe seven years previously, an investigation had taken place and that the DPP said there was no case to answer.

Michael McDowell, SC, for Sgt McCabe, asked Mr Williams: “Did he come back to you and say the allegations didn’t constitute a sexual assault and indeed an assault at all?”

Mr Williams said: “No.”

The tribunal was then referred to a letter sent by Liz Howlin in the DPP’s office to Rory Hayden, the State Solicitor for Cavan.

The tribunal heard the letter stated:

Dear Sir,

I acknowledge receipt of your letter dates 1st March 2007 together with copy Grda investigation file.

I agree with you and the Guards, that the evidence does no warrant a prosecution There was no admission. The incident as described by the injured party is vague. It appears that it was only when she was eleven/twelve that she decided that whatever occurred was sexual in nature.

Even if there wasn’t a doubt over her credibility, the incident that she describes does not constitute a sexual assault or indeed an assault.

Further, the account given to her cousin [redacted] differs in a a number of respects to that given to her parents and the Guards.

There is no basis for a prosecution.

Yours faithfully.

Asked if he had seen this letter would it have had an affect on him, Mr Williams told the tribunal:

“It would have given a different view.”

Just before the tribunal broke for lunch.

Judge Peter Charleton – who is overseeing the proceedings – asked the legal representatives to clarify with Supt Taylor the claims made by Mr Williams.

Specifically:

1) How many calls Paul Williams and Supt Taylor shared and when?

2) What did Supt Taylor actually say to Mr Williams?

3) Why did he say what he said to Mr Williams?

After lunch, Mr Williams returned to give evidence.

And, in response to Judge Charleton’s questions, Supt Taylor’s legal representative John Ferry BL said:

“It is our instructions that, to the best of our client’s recollection, there was only one phone call, which occurred on the Saturday Mr Williams attended at Ms D’s house.”

“Mr Williams telephoned our client and told him that he was at Ms D’s house and had interviewed her, that Maurice McCabe had destroyed this person and that he was going to write an article that was going to be very damaging to Maurice McCabe.

On the claim that he only made one phone call to Supt Tyalor on the matter, Mr Williams said:

“That’s not true.”

On the claim that he told Supt Taylor he had interview Ms D, that Sgt McCabe destroyed that person and that he was going to write a damaging article, Mr Williams said:

“That’s completely untrue.”

Judge Charleton intervened and asked Mr Williams if there had been any discussion at all about Sgt McCabe destroying anybody’s lives? Mr Williams said:

“No, there was not, chairman.”

Asked if there was anything in that ballpark, Mr Williams replied:

“No.”

Mr Ferry also told the tribunal that, according to Supt Taylor, the nature of the call was that Mr Williams was informing him of what happened and that Mr Williams did not ask Supt Taylor to confirm anything specific or confirm or deny any facts.

Mr Williams said that that was “totally untrue”.

Judge Charleton then asked Supt Taylor’s legal counsel if the instructions from Supt Taylor were that he didn’t say anything to Mr Williams?

Mr Ferry said:

Well, that Superintendent Taylor will say that he took note of what you had told him and that he passed on to his superior, who was then-Commissioner Martin Callinan, and also Deputy Commissioner O’Sullivan, by way of text message.

He added:

“The instructions are that he [Paul Williams] was providing information and that information was relayed on to a superior.”

Mr Williams said he did not call Supt Williams on the same day that he met Ms D and that he had regular conversations with him after he started to make inquiries. He added:

“He suggests there that I rang him up and made a declaration or a statement to him that Maurice McCabe allegedly destroyed somebody’s life. I don’t see any logic in saying that to anybody, especially a press officer. I rang him to clarify details with him, and that’s it.”

Mr Ferry also said that Supt Taylor maintains he received no further calls from Mr Williams on the matter before an article was published on April 2 or 3 [sic].

Readers will note Mr Williams’s first article on Ms D was published on April 12, 2014.

Mr Williams said: That’s not true, chairman.”

The tribunal continues.

Earlier: Tearing The Garda Family Apart

Meanwhile…

This morning.

Eamon Dunphy (top) and Vincent Browne (above) attending this morning’s session at the Disclosures Tribunal.

Leon Farrell/Rollingnews

From top: Social worker Laura Brophy; Senior Counsel Michael McDowell with his client Garda whistleblower Sergeant Maurice McCabe

Yesterday.

The Disclosures Tribunal heard from the woman who made a complaint to gardaí against Sgt Maurice McCabe in December 2006 which was investigated by the DPP who subsequently ordered that no prosecution take place.

Readers will recall that the woman is being referred to as Ms D during the tribunal. Her parents are referred to as Mr D, who is a guard, and Mrs D.

The tribunal has already heard that Ms D’s 2006 complaint resurfaced during a counselling session seven years later in 2013, in Cavan, with RIAN counsellor Laura Brophy.

It’s also heard how an erroneous allegation of rape against Sgt McCabe ended up being attributed to Ms D when Ms Brophy sent a botched referral to Tusla in August 2013.

The tribunal is not re-examining Ms D’s allegation of 2006 but it is examining how her allegation became conflated with the allegation of rape and how, and if, this was circulated between RIAN, Tusla and An Garda Siochana.

The examination of this matter is part of a wider investigation into allegations of a smear campaign orchestrated by former Garda Commissioner Martin Callinan with the knowledge of the current Garda Commissioner Noirin O’Sullivan – as alleged by the former head of the Garda Press Office Supt Dave Taylor.

Ms D, Mr D and Mrs D gave evidence yesterday in relation to all or some of the following:

– Ms D’s initial contact with RIAN counsellor Laura Brophy in July 2013;

– how journalists called to their home in early 2014;

– how Ms D conducted an interview with Paul Williams, of the Irish Independent, in March 2014 after Mr D had a conversation with Det Supt John O’Reilly, in which she told Mr Williams that Sgt McCabe had ruined the careers of some gardaí and tore the garda family apart in Cavan/Monaghan;

– how Ms D subsequently met with Fianna Fáil leader Mícheál Martin and former Minister for Justice Alan Shatter after that;

– how Ms D made a complaint to GSOC in July 2014, in which she told GSOC two unsubstantiated rumours about Sgt McCabe, namely that Sgt McCabe would “hang around the girls’ secondary school in suspicious circumstances” – something Ms D told GSOC Dept Supt O’Reilly told her father, Mr D; and that a girl from Clones, Co Monaghan had made a similar allegation to Ms D, something which was told to her by Mr D.

– how neither Ms D or Mr D told GSOC of the error made by Rian counselling when a contaminated referral was sent containing an unrelated rape allegation to Tusla in August 2013

– how Mr D became aware of the error after Supt Leo McGinn showed him the Tusla referral with the incorrect allegation of rape in May 2014;

– how Mr D told Ms D of this error;

– how Ms D went on to tell Ms Brophy of the error.

The tribunal also heard that Mr D believed the 2006 allegation pertaining to Sgt McCabe and his daughter was an “open secret” among gardaí; while Ms D said Baileboro and Virginia in Cavan are small towns and that the 2006 allegation was known in the area.

Counselling with Laura Brophy

Readers will note that Ms Brophy has told the tribunal that she held two counselling sessions with Ms D on July 24, 2013 and August 7, 2013.

Ms Brophy has already given evidence to the tribunal about how, on August 9, 2013, she referred Ms D’s allegation to Tusla as a retrospective disclosure of abuse without realising that she had added an allegation of rape – wholly unrelated to either Ms D or Sgt McCabe – to Ms D’s allegation.

This had the effect of it appearing that Ms D was accusing Sgt McCabe of rape which Ms D had never done. Tusla is obliged to inform An Garda Síochána of such allegations and vice versa.

Readers will recall Ms Brophy has already told the tribunal that she sent this referral to Tusla – after the two counselling sessions – on the basis that Tusla had no knowledge of the 2006 allegation and that, therefore, the matter had not been considered by a social worker.

She said this was her understanding based on a phone call she had had with Breige Tinnelly, of Tusla. However Ms Brophy was aware that the gardai were aware of the matter and that it had gone to the DPP.

Ms Brophy also specifically told the tribunal that if she had been given Sgt McCabe’s identity during her first session with Ms D, she would have been “obligated to send in a report [to Tusla] regardless of whether or not [Ms D] consented”.

But as Ms D had not identified Sgt McCabe to Ms Brophy during the first session, Ms Brophy said the purpose of her arranging to meet Ms D again was to obtain the alleged perpetrator’s identity.

Ms Brophy told the tribunal:

“I was leaving it to her to make that decision [to identify Sgt McCabe]. That is why I arranged to meet her again.”

Diarmuid McGuinness SC, for the tribunal, previously asked Ms Brophy to confirm if Ms D had given her consent to Ms Brophy about the sending of the referral, which, unbeknownst to her, turned out to be catastrophically wrong.

Ms Brophy told the tribunal:

“Well, it was — I suppose it was what I would call an informed disclosure, which I differentiate between informed and consent, so I am not saying that she was pleased about it going in, but I had said that I wouldn’t be able to unless the identity of the alleged was given to me and that was then given to me on our second appointment, so it’s my understanding that she was — it was informed disclosure planned.”

When asked if Ms D had been reluctant for a referral to go in, Ms Brophy said: “That’s correct.”

The tribunal has also previously heard Ms D signed a Confidentiality in Counselling form given to her by Ms Brophy during the first session, on July 24, 2013, while the only notes Ms Brophy took during the first session pertained to the Assessment of Counselling form she filled out.

The tribunal heard she didn’t take any notes of the second session. Instead, she returned to the assessment form and added Sgt McCabe’s details to it. Specifically, she said:

“I didn’t add to it, apart from the information that I received, which was the identifying information of the alleged at the time.”

The tribunal heard that the only other notes that Ms Brophy took, pertaining to her contact with Ms D, were in relation to telephone calls she had with Ms D after the error became known to her, by Ms D, in May 2014.

Further to this…

Yesterday.

Ms D told the tribunal that she attended counselling with Ms Brophy after her mother encouraged her to do so.

Mr D told the tribunal that Ms D would get upset every time she saw or heard Sgt McCabe’s name mentioned and that’s why her mother proposed that she go to counselling – particularly as she was planning to go back to college in September 2013.

“I said ‘just go, keep your mum happy,” Mr D said.

Readers may wish to note that Sgt Maurice McCabe was not mentioned in the national media until January 2014.

Ms D told the tribunal yesterday that she could not recall having two counselling sessions with Ms Brophy but conceded that, if documents showed there had been two meetings, she accepted that.

She said she never told Ms Brophy anything different to what she told the guards in 2006.

Asked about the referring of her allegation on to Tusla, Ms D told the tribunal that she could recall Ms Brophy saying something to the effect that her allegation would be something that she might have to refer on. Ms D said this “straight away” got her back up.

“‘Refer what?’ I said…I couldn’t understand,” Ms D told the tribunal.

Ms D said she told Ms Brophy that the matter had already been investigated, that the DPP had ordered that there was to be no prosecution, and that Tusla were made aware of the matter in 2006.

Ms D told the tribunal:

“I was there to get counselling to deal with the emotions I was feeling. I was not there to make any complaint or to lodge any referral.”

Asked if Ms Brophy had explained to her the issues around confidentiality, Ms D said: “I honestly don’t recall it being explained to me in depth.”

Ms D’s attention was then brought to the confidentiality form that she signed on July 24, 2013.

She conceded it looked familiar and that she signed it on July 24, 2013.

Ms D was then asked about Ms Brophy’s evidence that the purpose of Ms D returning for a second counselling session on August 7 was that it was to give Ms D time to think about disclosing Sgt McCabe’s identity to Ms Brophy.

Ms D said: “I don’t really recall the second meeting.”

Ms D repeated that she was there to deal with current emotions and not there to either make a complaint or to have anything referred on to Tusla. She also said that she could not recall Ms Brophy telling her that Tusla did not have a referral from the matter in 2006.

“Nor did she tell me she was going to make a retrospective referral,” Ms D told the tribunal.

Ms D said she didn’t think the matter was going to be referred as she believed the matter had been dealt with.

Under cross-examination from Mr McDowell SC, he asked Ms D to confirm if she made it clear to Ms Brophy that Tusla were made aware of her complaint in 2006/2007 and she said: Yes.

Mr McDowell also asked her to confirm if she made it clear to Ms Brophy that the gardai were aware and she said: “Of course.”

Mr McDowell put it to Ms D that, from Ms D’s evidence, Ms Brophy was “pushing the referral”. Ms D said: “Yes.”

Asked if she was “pushing against that”, Ms D said:

“Exactly. I did not go to Laura Brophy to have a referral. I didn’t want the matter referred. As far as I was aware Tusla had on my file the complaint from 2006 and obviously the gardaí were aware, as I made the complaint to them.”

Mr McDowell later asked Ms D if she accepted that, in a second meeting with Ms Brophy, in August 2013, that she did in fact identify Sgt McCabe to Ms Brophy. Ms D said: Yes.

Mr McDowell said he didn’t want to get into what Ms D did or didn’t say to Ms Brophy but drew her attention to the fact that Ms Brophy has already told the tribunal that Ms D had fears of an adverse effect on her chances of becoming a guard.

Ms D said she could recall telling Ms Brophy that she wanted to be a guard but should couldn’t recall saying that she feared the matter would have an adverse affect on her chances of becoming a guard.

Mr McDowell asked if it’s fair to say she must have been unhappy with her encounter with Laura Brophy, Ms D said: “Yes it wasn’t an enjoyable experience.”

Ms D’s father – a guard who is referred to as Mr D in the tribunal – was asked if he asked Ms D about her counselling session. He said he “didn’t go into the ins and outs of it” but “I do remember she was quite annoyed when she came home. She said the counsellor had to refer it [to Tusla]. She was annoyed, chairman, very annoyed.”

Ms D’s mother – referred to as Mrs D in the tribunal – told the tribunal that she drove Ms D to the first counselling session and walked her into the reception. Asked about Ms D’s mood after the first appointment, Mrs D said:

“She was in an absolute foul mood. When she came out she was like a demon.”

Mrs D said her daughter was upset because the counsellor told her she was going to have to make a referral.

Journalists calling to the D family

The tribunal heard how how two journalists called to the D family’s home in early 2014 at a time when Ms D was attending college in the south east of Ireland.

Mr D told the tribunal that he believed the 2006 allegation “was an open secret in the guards and journalists were aware”. He said: “I presumed to myself that this is why there was a sudden media interest.”

Mrs D recalled how Debbie McCann, of the Irish Mail on Sunday, was the first to call to the house “out of the blue” in February 2014 for what was a five-minute encounter.

Mrs D said Ms McCann was heavily pregnant at the time and she presumed Ms McCann was somebody looking for directions. However, once Ms McCann introduced herself as a journalist, Mrs D realised this wasn’t the case.

Mrs D said she instantly “horrified” as she tried to understand why Ms McCann called to the house. Mrs D said Ms McCann “said something about the whistleblower” and Mrs D told her that the D family were not speaking to anybody.

Asked if she understood why Ms McCann was there, Ms D said she assumed it had something to do with Ms D and her complaint against Sgt McCabe of 2006.

Asked why she made that assumption, Mrs D said because Ms McCann said something to the effect that she knew she had been though a hard time but “there’s obviously another side of the story”. Mrs D said Ms McCann told her she got the D family’s address or details from “downtown”.

Mrs D told the tribunal that, in hindsight, she felt she was perhaps a bit rude to Ms McCann as she was heavily pregnant and didn’t invite her in.

The tribunal heard that, a few days after Ms McCann called to the house, another journalist Eavan Murray, currently of the Irish Sun, also called to the D family home. Mrs D said she could recall that Ms Murray was “a big tall girl”.

When Mr D was giving evidence, he mentioned Ms Murray getting in contact and told the tribunal that, also around that time, Mick O’Toole, of the Irish Daily Star, sent him a message on Facebook.

When Mrs D was giving evidence, and asked if she asked Ms Murray how she knew to call to the house, Mrs D replied that she couldn’t remember.

However, unlike Ms McCann, Mr and Mrs D had tea with Ms Murray. Asked what they talked about while having tea, Mrs D said:

“I suppose I probably would have said that our daughter had gone through a tough time and that all this McCabe stuff wasn’t helping her, probably something along those lines.”

Interview with Paul Williams

Both Ms D and Mr D were asked about Ms D being interviewed by Paul Williams, of the Irish Independent, in March 2104.

Ms D told the tribunal she had asked to meet Mr Williams herself.

She said she had “a personal grievance against” Sgt McCabe since 1998 and that, while she had tried to deal with it herself and cope with it, she was very upset when he became a public figure and “was being described as a heroic man”.

She told the tribunal:

“I felt very unhappy. I was very upset and I wanted people to know there was another side to this man.”

She said she wanted to speak to somebody to get “her side of the story out”.

She said Mr Williams was one reporter she knew of and she had discussed some of his articles in college. She said: “He was one reporter I would have been happy to speak to.”

The tribunal heard Mr Williams first met with Ms D’s parents on March 5 – while she was at college – and then on March 8, 2014, she gave him an interview when he called to her house.

Ms D said she did not speak to any other journalists in 2014.

Asked if anyone prompted her to speak with Mr Williams, she said: “No, I wanted to speak to him myself.”

And asked if she discussed meeting with Mr Williams with anyone other than her family, she said: No.

Under cross-examination from Michael McDowell, SC, for Sgt McCabe, Mr McDowell read a section of transcript of Ms D’s interview with Mr Williams.

Mr McDowell said Ms D told Mr Williams that a lot of gardai in Baileboro/Cavan district are upset, questioning their own work, doubting themselves and their own ability and that the Garda family in the tight-knit division had been ripped apart.

Mr McDowell said Ms D told Mr Williams that people were afraid to speak to each other, didn’t know who to trust and that Sgt McCabe had ruined the careers of a lot of gardai and retired gardaí.

“He is not a nice man, Paul,” the tribunal heard Ms D told Mr Williams.

Mr McDowell asked Ms D who specifically she was referring to when she told Mr Williams that Sgt McCabe had ruined careers.

Ms D said:

“Honestly I don’t know who I was specifically referring to. Perhaps that was a flippant remark. I don’t have specific names.”

Mr McDowell put it to Ms D that, at that time, nobody was accepting Sgt McCabe’s allegations and that, in fact, he was the man who was being ostracised, yet she was saying he had ruined a lot of careers.

Ms D said as it was more than three years ago when she made this claim, she couldn’t recall what she meant by saying it.”

Mr McDowell said: “You must have meant something.”

She replied: “I don’t recall.”

Mr McDowell suggested to Ms D that perhaps she was referring to her father, Mr D.

Ms D said: “No, he didn’t ruin my father’s career.”

Mr McDowell put it to her that Mr D was removed from the crime investigation section after Sgt McCabe took disciplinary action against Mr D and others back in January 2006. Mr McDowell reminded her that this happened 11 months before she made the allegation against Sgt McCabe.

Ms D said that timeline of events was “correct”.

The tribunal heard Ms D say that while speaking with Mr Williams and telling him she was “very unhappy with how her complaint was handled”, Mr Williams suggested to her that, if she had a complaint, speaking to GSOC was an avenue for her to pursue if she so wished.

Under cross-examination from Mr Fanning SC, for Mr Williams, Ms D was asked if it would be fair to say that, during her and Mr Williams’s interview, Mr Williams referred to GSOC in the course of a question but didn’t advocate what route she take. Ms D said that would be fair.

When Mr D was asked about how Paul Williams came to contact his daughter, Mr D explained that it came as a result of a conversation he had with Det Supt John O’Reilly.

While Mr D couldn’t recall the date of his encounter with Det Supt O’Reilly, he said he believed Ms McCann had called to the house before his conversation with Det Supt O’Reilly.

Mr D told the tribunal that he and Det Supt O’Reilly had been friends for 25 years and that they met up regularly. He said he couldn’t recall if they had this particular conversation about Ms D in either of their houses or if it was over a pint.

Mr D told the tribunal that he remembers Det Supt O’Reilly asking him how Ms D was coping with all the media attention Sgt McCabe was getting at the time in early 2014. The tribunal heard Det Supt O’Reilly knew of the 2006 allegation.

“I said not very well, she’s frustrated, she just feels that this side of McCabe has just been brushed under the carpet, her voice is lost and she’d love to speak to somebody,” Mr D told the tribunal.

Mr D said he told Det Supt that journalists had contacted the D family unsolicited but that he counselled his daughter to be wary.

Mr D told the tribunal that Det Supt O’Reilly asked if she would speak to someone like Paul Williams. He said he replied that he didn’t know but that he’d say it to Ms D. He told the tribunal that he said to Det Supt O’Reilly maybe he (Det Supt O’Reilly) could contact Paul Williams and he (Mr D) would ask Ms D if she would like to speak to Mr Williams

The tribunal heard Det Supt O’Reilly gave Mr D the phone number of Mr Williams and Mr D subsequently contacted Mr Williams and arranged for Mr Williams to call to the D family home.

Under questioning from Michael O’Higgins, for the Garda Commissioner, Mr D was asked if he had any sense that Det Supt O’Reilly was “sent to you with a view of smearing” Sgt McCabe.

Mr D said: “No, I know him 25 years. I genuinely believe the man was trying to help, as I would do if the situation was reversed.”

In response to questions under cross-examination from Michael McDowell, Mr D said Ms D was very angry that Sgt McCabe had been getting “unlimited praise” in media around this time of March 2014.

He said: “Despite my own reservations, she felt strongly that she wanted to meet someone, so I gave her the number of Paul Williams.”

Mr McDowell asked Mr D about his contact with Mr Williams. Mr D said, as far as he could recall, he rang Mr Williams to tell him where the D family lived and he called to house where he spoke to Mr and Mrs D briefly. They then organised the interview with Ms D for a Saturday.

The tribunal heard Mr Williams subsequently visited the home on a Saturday, with a videographer, and talked to Ms D in the sitting room privately.

Mr McDowell recalled what Ms D told Mr Williams in relation to the claim Sgt McCabe was “tearing the Garda family in Baileboro/Cavan apart” and that he “ruined” the careers of certain gardaí. Mr McDowell asked Mr D if this was something Ms D had heard from him (Mr D).

Mr D conceded that Ms D may have heard him say a few guards had gotten in trouble but he said he would never have used the word “ruined” and that he would never had said anything that strong.

Meeting Micheál Martin and Alan Shatter

The tribunal heard about how Ms D went on to meet the leader of Fianna Fáil Mícheál Martin and met with former Justice Minister Alan Shatter in 2014.

In relation to her meeting with Mr Martin, Ms D said Mr Williams told her it was Mr Martin who had given the then Taoiseach Enda Kenny Sgt McCabe’s dossier of allegations of Garda misconduct in relation to Cavan/Monaghan [on February 19, 2014].

Ms D said, at this time, she felt her case wasn’t investigated properly and that she felt her case was more serious than some of the cases Sgt McCabe was claiming needed to be looked at.

Asked if she could recall Mr Williams giving her a lift to meet with Mr Martin, Ms D said she couldn’t recall that.

Later in the tribunal, Mr Fanning, SC, for Paul Williams, put it to Ms D that, according to Mr Williams’ statement, he collected Ms D from a train station and brought her to the Dáil to meet Michael Martin. Mr Fanning said Mr Williams claims he also collected her after the meeting and brought her back to the train station.

Ms D conceded that that was possible as she would have been travelling up from the south east.

Ms D explained that she went on to meet Alan Shatter, who resigned as Minister for Justice on May 7, 2014, after Mr Williams contacted her and told her that Mr Shatter was aware of the situation and wanted to speak to her about the matter.

Ms D subsequently met Mr Shatter on June 17, 2014 in the Merrion Hotel in Dublin for an hour and a half.

Ms D was asked what her did she understand to be the purpose of that meeting and she started to cry.

She told the tribunal: “I was there because Micheal Martin did nothing after I had met with him. I wanted my case to be reinvestigated, the way the case was handled to be looked at. I felt nobody seems to be listening to me so I felt Alan Shatter might be able to do something.”

Mr McDowell later told the tribunal that Mr Shatter later called for Ms D’s allegations to be investigated.

GSOC

The tribunal heard Ms D made a statement to GSOC on July 3, 2014. Her father Mr D also made a statement to GSOC, the tribunal heard.

In her statement, among other matters, Ms D told GSOC that Mr Williams told her senior members of An Garda Siochana and in the Government were aware of her allegations.

Under cross-examination Mr McDowell recalled how Ms D indicated to GSOC that Sgt McCabe “had been hanging around the girl’s secondary school in suspicious circumstances”. She told GSOC that this was something Det Supt O’Reilly told her father.

Mr McDowell asked Mr D if Ms D had heard that from him?

He said: No.

Mr McDowell then recalled Ms D’s other claim to GSOC that “another young woman in Clones made a similar allegation about Sgt McCabe” and went on to ask him if Ms D had heard that from him.

Before Mr D could answer, Mícheal O’Higgins SC, for the Commissioner, interrupted to ask Judge Charleton if these were questions that Mr McDowell should have put to Ms D, as opposed to Mr D.

Mr Charleton said the questions were relevant.

Mr McDowell continued. “So none of that came from you?”

Mr D admitted that he did tell her he’d heard a rumour, or a “whisper”, from a retired guard that some girl in Clones had made an allegation. Mr D told the tribunal he doesn’t know where the retired guard heard it from and that he might have mentioned it “in passing” to his daughter.

However, Mr D repeated that he would not have told her any rumour about Sgt McCabe at the girls’ secondary school.

He told the judge that the rumour in relation to Clones “was put to me was a whisper”.

At another stage in the tribunal’s proceedings, Mr D was asked if he was involved in any campaign to discredit Sgt McCabe and he said: “Absolutely not. My only concern was, and still is, my daughter. She was extremely distraught at the time.”

Mr McDowell also asked Mr D why neither Ms D nor Mr D mentioned to GSOC about the “monumental cock-up” of August 2013 when Ms D’s allegation was mixed up with an allegation of rape.

Mr D said: “Because I thought it had been dealt with.”

One matter that Mr Williams had reported in his articles on Ms D (though unidentified) was that her allegation was never put on PULSE. Mr McDowell asked Mr D if this was something he informed Ms D and GSOC of and he said: Yes.

Mr McDowell asked Mr D if he was aware that the sergeant who conducted the investigation at the time, in 2006, said he was not putting it on PULSE. Mr D said he was not aware of that.

Mr McDowell asked Mr D if he accepted that the sergeant was “attempting not to give undue circulation of the incident”.

Mr D replied:

“I don’t accept that. If an allegation is made to An Garda Siochana, you’re obliged to record it on PULSE.”

Mr McDowell asked Mr D if it would be fair to say that, from the beginning of 2006 onwards, he and Sgt McCabe were on poor terms.

Mr D said he wouldn’t use that phrase but he said they weren’t friends.

In relation to the disciplinary procedure of 2006, Mr D said it “wasn’t Sgt McCabe’s fault what happened, it was my own fault.”

The tribunal heard that Ms D also wrote to Sean Guerin in early 2014 about her allegation from 2006.

She said she understood that Mr Guerin was undertaking an investigation into Sgt McCabe’s dossier and that she couldn’t understand why her case could not be included.

“I felt it should have been included,” she said.

Mr D being informed by Supt McGinn

Readers will recall how the tribunal has already heard how Mr D was shown the incorrect Tusla referral by Supt Leo McGinn in “early May”. He can’t recall the specific date.

This was his statement which he largely repeated while giving evidence yesterday:

“Early May, my superintendent, Leo McGinn, asked me did I have a minute. I went into his office. He handed me a HSE referral form and asked ‘is that your lassie? I said ‘yeah, that is her’. I saw the detail of the allegation, digital penetration. I couldn’t believe it. I got a fierce shock. I couldn’t think straight. I felt had she told the counsellor this and not told us. Had this actually happened. She had maybe told the counsellor but had not told us. I was sick to my stomach. I couldn’t wait to get out of the office.”

I didn’t say anything to Leo McGinn as I didn’t know what was going on.”

The mistaken referral implied that Ms D was accusing Sgt McCabe of rape. Mr D told the tribunal he “almost collapsed” when he saw the allegation.

Mr D subsequently set out to contact his daughter who was in the south east of the country at the time by calling her but that she could be bad at responding to calls at the best of times. Yesterday, the tribunal heard Mr D couldn’t recall if he spoke to her on the same day he found out or if it was the day after.

Mr D told the tribunal that he was relieved that the rape allegation had nothing to do with her.

Asked if he contacted Supt McGinn to tell him this was a mistake, he said: “I don’t remember. I recall I would have contacted Supt McGinn and told him it was incorrect.”

Asked when he told Supt McGinn this, Mr D said: “I don’t remember.” However, he said: “I remember speaking to Leo McGinn and saying it’s an almighty cock-up.”

Asked if he could recall a conversation with Supt McGinn as to whether the error had been fixed or if any new corrected notification had come in, Mr D said: “I don’t chairman.”

Mr D was asked if Supt McGinn ever showed him a correct referral and Mr D said “a few weeks later” he could recall Supt McGinn saying ‘this is a new referral’.

However, Mr D couldn’t recall if Sutp McGinn showed him the corrected referral or if he had just told him.

Asked if he believed the error had been corrected, Mr D said: “Absolutely.”

Mr D told the tribunal: “If there’s a mistake of that magnitude, I just presumed it would be fixed. I couldn’t conceive it wouldn’t be fixed.”

Under cross-examination from Michael McDowell SC, for Sgt McCabe, Mr D was asked if it ever occurred to him that it was extraordinary for Supt McGinn to show him this referral and that it was none of Supt McGinn’s business to draw Mr D’s attention to it. Mr D said he believed Supt McGinn showed it to him out of “common decency” and that they had been working together for four years.

Mr McDowell said: “This is no criticism of you…it was a huge breach of confidentiality to bring that form to your attention.”

Mr D said he didn’t accept that as it was about his daughter.

Mr McDowell asked if Supt McGinn knew of the 2006 allegation Ms D had made against Ms D and he said: “Not to my knowledge”. Mr D also confirmed it was the first time he interacted with Supt McGinn in relation to Ms D.

Mr McDowell asked Mr D if, once he spoke with Ms D and learned that the rape allegation was a mistake, did he go back to Supt McGinn and tell him the referral was wrong.

Mr D said that, from his memory, whether it was the next day, or the following Monday, he would have told him this was a monumental cock-up.

Mr D added: “I can’t honestly remember did he know at that stage or did he undertake to contact Tusla.”

Ms D was also asked about the time she learned of he error.

She said as soon as she received the call from her father, she could tell he was agitated and that he, more or less, asked her, “what the hell have you said to this counsellor?”

She said she didn’t know what he was talking about and when he explained to her what he read on the Tusla referral, she said became livid, upset and stressed. She said she told her father she never used the words pertaining to Ms Y’s allegation of vaginal and anal digital penetration.

Asked what she did on foot of getting this call from her father, Ms D told the tribunal that she believes she rang Ms Brophy to inform her of the error but said she doesn’t have “full recollection” of that call.

She said she knows she told the tribunal’s investigators that she didn’t have contact with Laura Brophy but that she’s seen documentation and notes by Ms Brophy with details of phone calls that they shared after Ms D informed her of the error.

Readers will recall that the tribunal has already heard evidence from Ms Brophy that she had two phone calls with Ms D on May 14, 2014 and then another phonecall on May 16, 2014

The May 16 call was in respect of the stated knowledge of the superintendent in Baileboro Garda Station.

Ms D said:

 

“I’m not saying I didn’t but I don’t remember those calls. I don’t recall speaking with her. She said she has notes. I can’t say I didn’t but I don’t recall making those calls myself. I don’t disagree with her but I don’t recall what was said.”

 

Ms D was also asked about a letter that Ms Brophy told the tribunal she sent to Ms D on May 16, 2014. Ms D said: “I never got that letter.” She said the first time she saw that letter was when she met investigators of the tribunal.

Asked if anyone else got the letter, she said: “Definitely not, definitely not.” She added that if her parents had received it, they would have sent it on to her.

Under cross-examination from Mr McDowell, he said to Ms D that Ms Brophy has given evidence that, on May 16, 2014, Ms D told her the superintendent in Baileboro was unaware of the error and that the superintendent was due to meet with “the Garda Commissioner” (the tribunal has heard it’s understood this might actually refer to area commissioner or assistant commissioner).

The tribunal has also heard that, on foot of this knowledge that the superintendent wasn’t aware, Ms Brophy sent a letter, by registered post, to the superintendent.

Mr McDowell asked Ms D if it was Ms D who asked Ms Brophy to send the registered letter but Ms D said “I can’t recall making that call”.

Mr McDowell continued and put it to Ms D that if it had been a suggestion made by her, it would have been a strange thing to ask unless “you were getting a request from somebody else”.

Ms D repeated that she didn’t recall saying that.

Mr McDowell asked Mr D if he would have told Ms D to tell Ms Brophy to send a registered letter and Mr D said: No.

Mr McDowell pointed out that an average person would not start talking about registered letters and Mr D accepted the point.

Mr McDowell also put it to Mr D that it was “remarkable” that Ms D was able to tell Ms Brophy that the superintendent wasn’t aware of the error.

Mr D told Mr McDowell: “It is and it wasn’t me.”

Mr D also said that the reference Ms Brophy made to the “commissioner” also did not come from him.

Ms D was asked about her knowledge of what happened in relation to the referral containing the digital rape allegation after she informed Ms Brophy of the error.

Ms D said: “Once I bought the error to her [Laura Brophy’s] attention, I assumed the error would be fixed and that would be the end of it. I was never informed of what happened.”

Asked if she ever wondered what happened, she said: “To be honest, I imagine, once the call was made, I believed that was the end of it. I was [in the south east] and wanted to get on with my life.”

Asked if her father ever told her if the error was remedied, she said: “I can’t recall.”

Asked if she hoped or assumed the matter was remedied, she said: “I assumed Laura Brophy would have corrected her error and that that would have been the end of it.”

Mr McDowell asked when she became aware that a corrected Garda referral had been made, Ms D said: “I can’t recall when or if I had known there was a corrected referral sent in.”

Mr McDowell asked Ms D if she’s aware now that a corrected referral was sent to Tusla, and she said: Yes.

Mr McDowell then said: “You cant tell us when you first became aware?”

She said: “Yes.”

While cross-examining Mr D, Michael McDowell, for Sgt McCabe, asked Mr D if he ever thought to wonder what was going to happen with the corrected referral.

Mr D said: “No I didn’t.” He said this was because the matter had been referred to almost 10 years previously, had gone to the DPP and so he “didn’t expect any action on it”.

Mr McDowell also brought Mr D’s attention to May 7 – when Supt McGinn first got the referral with the wrong digital penetration allegation and how he immediately wrote to Chief Superintendent Sheridan, suggesting that an investigation take place into the matter or that it be handed over to the cold case.

Mr McDowell asked Mr D if Supt McGinn ever indicated to Mr D that he was going to “haul that back in” once it was known that the rape allegation was an error.

Mr D said he presumed Supt McGinn would have done this once the error was known.

Mr McDowell highlighted how while Ms D made a complaint to GSOC and met with Michael Martin, Mr D was also claiming that she wanted didn’t want it to go to Tusla or the gardai and that she wanted to move on with her life.

Mr D said: “She didn’t want the allegation investigated again, she wanted the investigation investigated.”

May 2015

Ms D was also asked about the letter Tusla social worker Kay McLoughlin sent to her in May 2015 seeking an appointment with Ms D on June 2, 2015.

Readers will recall how Ms McLoughlin has already told the tribunal how she sent this letter.

Ms D said she remembered her mother calling her to say a letter had arrived from Tusla and asking her if she (Ms D) wanted her to open it and read it to her.

Ms D said, from what she could recall, the letter said an appointment was being made for her, for June 2, 2015, and that they wanted to discuss something with her.

Ms D asked her mother to call Ms McLoughlin to find out what it was about and Ms McLoughlin told Mrs D that she needed to speak with Ms D directly.

Ms D said she couldn’t recall the full conversation but she does remembering asking “what in god’s name did they want to discuss?” – as this was a year after she made Tusla aware of the mistake that they had made.

She also said she couldn’t understand why Tusla would want to discuss a complaint she had made almost 10 years previously.

Ms D told the tribunal she didn’t attend the meeting.

In July 2016, Ms D moved home.

The tribunal heard Ms D was sent a letter from SART in August 25, 2016. She said she couldn’t recall receiving that letter but she does recall saying she didn’t want to follow up the matter with SART.

She said she wanted to put a lid on the matter and move on with her life.

Asked about the letter that Sgt McCabe was sent in December 2015, which Mr D saw through the tribunal investigation, and if he was shocked by its contents, he said: “Absolutely horrified. I still find it unbelievable.”

The tribunal continues today with evidence from Paul Williams and Debbie McCann, staring from 10am.

Rollingnews

From top: Sergeant Maurice McCabe with his wife Lorraine; Social worker Laura Brophy

Today.

From noon.

At the Disclosures Tribunal in Dublin Castle.

The tribunal will hear from Ms D in a private sitting.

Readers will recall Ms D was aged 14 in December 2006 when she made a complaint to gardai that Sgt Maurice McCabe held her above a sofa and made “dry humping” motions towards her during a game of hide and seek when she was aged six or seven in 1998.

The tribunal has already heard that Ms D’s claim was investigated by the DPP who subsequently ordered that no prosecution take place.

It’s also heard that, according to Sgt McCabe’s legal counsel, the DPP queried how Ms D’s parents could have reached the conclusion that a sexual assault had occurred even as described.

Ms D parents – referred to as Mrs D and Mr D, who’s a garda, – will also give evidence today.

Mr D, the tribunal has heard, “lost his position and was reverted to other duties” after Sgt McCabe “caused the institution of serious disciplinary procedure against” Mr D in January 2006 – 11 months before Ms D made her complaint.

The tribunal is not re-examining Ms D’s allegation but it is examining how her allegation became conflated with another much more serious and wholly separate allegation of rape pertaining to a Ms Y when HSE counsellor Laura Brophy sent a referral to Tusla on August 9.

This referral was sent after Ms Brophy held two counselling sessions with Ms D.

Ms Brophy sent this referral, she told the tribunal, on the basis that it was her understanding that Tusla had no knowledge of the 2006 allegation and that, therefore, the matter had not been considered by a social worker.

She said this understanding was based on a phone call she had had with Breige Tinnelly, of Tusla. However Ms Brophy knew the matter had been sent to the DPP.

Michael McDowell SC, for Sgt McCabe, in a previous sitting, asked Ms Brophy if she was aware that in 2006/2007, the gardai were obliged to inform the HSE of all such incidents. Ms Brophy said that this was her confusion at the time and that’s what she wanted to check when she rang Ms Tinnelly.

Mr McDowell argued that Ms Brophy was misinformed by Ms Tinnelly and that “the reality is that a report was going in on this occasion, no matter what” and that Ms Brophy’s claim – that she wouldn’t have sent in the report had been told that the matter was already known to Tusla – “is not supportive on the paper”.

Ms Tinnelly has yet to give evidence.

Mr McDowell also asked Ms Brophy about an article by Conor Lally in The Irish Times from earlier this year, in which Ms D is quoted speaking negatively about her counselling session with Ms Brophy.

At one point in the article, Ms D said:

“I knew by her [Ms Brophy] she was going to report it whether I wanted to or not.”

Brophy told the tribunal that that wasn’t her recollection of their meeting.

Tusla didn’t become aware of Ms Brophy’s mistake until May 14, 2014 – when Ms D called Ms Brophy to inform her of it.

The tribunal has also heard Michael O’Higgins SC, for the Commissioner Noirin O’Sullivan, read to the tribunal excerpts of a statement made by Ms D’s father in relation to when he became aware of the false allegation related to his daughter and Sgt McCabe – before it was known that it was a mistake – in May 2014.

He said:

“Early May, my superintendent, Leo McGinn, asked me did I have a minute. I went into his office. He handed me a HSE referral form and asked ‘is that your lassie? I said ‘yeah, that is her’. I saw the detail of the allegation, digital penetration. I couldn’t believe it. I got a fierce shock.

“I couldn’t think straight. I felt had she told the counsellor this and not told us. Had this actually happened. She had maybe told the counsellor but had not told us. I was sick to my stomach. I couldn’t wait to get out of the office.”

“I didn’t say anything to Leo McGinn as I didn’t know what was going on.”

Previously: No Recollection

‘There Isn’t An Error In His Favour’

Tusla social worker Eileen Argue at the Disclosures Tribunal this afternoon

This afternoon.

At the Disclosures Tribunal.

Judge Peter Charleton closed his eyes and appeared to rest his head, allowing it to hang down in front of him, for several noticeable moments while listening to a witness give evidence.

The witness was Tusla social worker Eileen Argue who has worked as a social worker since 2006.

At the time Mr Charleton rested his head, she happened to be repeating that she couldn’t recall her contact with Sgt McCabe’s Tusla file in April and May 2014.

Specifically she couldn’t recall her involvement, if any, in Laura Connolly’s sending of a Garda notification containing a false allegation of rape against Sgt McCabe to Tusla and Ms Connolly’s acceptance that Ms Argue directed her to open intake records on four of Sgt McCabe’s children, two of whom were over 18 at the time, on April 30, 2014.

Readers will recall how Ms Argue has previously been referred to in the tribunal by other witnesses who’ve given evidence, including Ms Connolly.

Ms Connolly has already told the tribunal how, on April 30, 2014, she plucked Sgt McCabe’s unallocated file randomly from a filing cabinet and sent a Garda notification with a monumental error as her notification contained an amalgamation of Ms D’s ‘hide and seek’ allegation with that of a rape allegation which pertained to neither Sgt McCabe nor Ms D.

It appeared that Sgt McCabe was accused of raping Ms Y during a game of hide and seek.

Ms Connolly – who also told the tribunal “I have no recollection of any involvement in this case” – told the tribunal the files would have been left in a referrals tray for Ms Argue but, despite this, they were not discussed at the following weekly referrals meeting and there was no action recorded.

Ms Connolly told the tribunal she couldn’t recall discussing Sgt McCabe’s file with Ms Argue on that day. The two women’s offices are on the same floor.

Last week, Mr McDowell asked Ms Connolly who would have decided which files were to be discussed at the weekly referrals meeting, and Ms Connolly said that was the decision of the social work team leader. Asked if that was Eileen Argue, Ms Connolly said, yes.

Another witness to have mentioned Ms Argue is Laura Brophy.

Ms Brophy was the RIAN counsellor who was the first person to mistakenly conflate a 2006 allegation of inappropriate touching by Ms D against Sgt Maurice McCabe with an unrelated rape allegation when she referred the matter to Tusla in August 2013.

She sent this referral to Tusla, thinking it just contained Ms D’s 2006 allegation, even though Ms D’s allegations had already been referred to the HSE in 2006/2007.

Ms Brophy previously told the tribunal how she had trouble contacting Ms Argue when she first learned of the error on May 14, 2014.

Ms Brophy hand-delivered a letter outlining what had happened but, according to Ms Brophy, as she couldn’t get a hold of Ms Argue she couldn’t enquire about Tusla’s communication with the gardai.

On May 15, 2014, Ms Brophy wrote in an email to her superior Fiona Ward that Ms Argue had been in contact with Chief Superintendent James Sheridan but that Ms Argue could not guarantee the return of the report by Chief Superintendent Sheridan.

On May 20, Ms Brophy emailed Ms Ward again to tell her she was still waiting to hear back from Ms Argue about Chief Superintendent Sheridan and the gardaí’s knowledge of the mistake and the actions taken.

Further to this…

This afternoon.

Ms Argue told the tribunal she couldn’t recall if she knew Sgt McCabe, has very little recollection of events pertaining to Sgt McCabe and said all her information is based on her review of the files for the purposes of the tribunal.

She was reminded that she, like area manager Gerry Lowry, had attended several child protection conferences with Sgt McCabe and they were both even assigned to the same CORE meetings in relation to particular cases in 2006, 2008 and 2009.

Ms Argue couldn’t recall these meetings.

Readers will recall Ms Lowry also told the tribunal he couldn’t recall being at the same meetings as Sgt McCabe, even though he chaired them.

Ms Argue was also reminded of a meeting of social workers on April 24, 2007 where Ms D’s allegation and Sgt McCabe were discussed.

At that meeting, it was decided that Sgt McCabe would be met by a social worker from Meath – and not Cavan/Monaghan – as he worked with the social workers from Cavan/Monaghan. This meeting was also told that the DPP had ordered that no prosecution against Sgt McCabe be brought.

Sgt McCabe was never met by a social worker.

Ms Argue couldn’t recall this meeting.

Ms Argue was asked if she read stories about Sgt McCabe in the media in 2014 and if she knew if he was regarded as a whisteblower. She said she remembered some mentions of Sgt McCabe but couldn’t recall the context of those reports.

Asked when she did see or hear the media reports, did she link the Sgt McCabe mentioned in the press with the Sgt McCabe she shared meetings with from 2006 to 2009, she couldn’t recall.

Asked about her involvement with Ms Connolly’s actions pertaining to Sgt McCabe’s file – the sending of the Garda notification and the opening of the child intake files – Ms Argue said she can’t recall any specifics but, at the time, they would have been looking at many unallocated cases with tasks outstanding.

Readers will recall how the tribunal has already heard that a handwritten comment left by Keara McGlone on the file – in August 2013 – stated: “duty to guard notify and await assessment of allocation”.

The tribunal has also previously heard of a post-it note on the file which stated: “Duty to notify allocation to AGS and file in the cabinet, Eileen.”

When Ms Connolly was asked if this post-it prompted her to send the Garda notification in April 2014, she told the tribunal: “it’s a possibility”, adding that she first heard of the post-it note when she was interviewed by the tribunal’s investigators earlier this year.

This afternoon, it was put to Ms Argue that this post-it seemed to be a direction given by her.

Ms Argue accepted it was her handwriting but couldn’t recall writing it.

Ms Argue was also unable to recall if she reviewed Sgt McCabe’s file at that time.

She said:

“I don’t recall if I read the file. It looks more like I looked at the intake record. It was more likely, at that time, that that is possibly what happened. I can’t be 100% certain.”

The tribunal has already heard of a note Ms Connolly sent to Ms Argue in which she outlines that Sgt McCAbe had four children – two aged under 18 and two aged over 18 – and asks Ms Argue how she should proceed.

The tribunal has heard of another note from Ms Connolly which states:

“Case direction from Eileen: Complete intake records X 4 on children.”

Ms Argue said:

“I don’t recall giving that direction. I don’t believe that I would have directed for two intake records for two children over 18.”

Asked if she is now doubting Ms Connolly’s evidence, Ms Argue said she wasn’t saying that but she doesn’t recall these notes and doesn’t believe she would direct anyone to open files on people aged over 18.

Ms Argue also couldn’t recall a letter she recieved from Laura Brophy outlining the error she made.

“I’m not saying I didn’t receive it but I don’t recall receiving it,” she said.

In relation to the amended Garda notification in May 2014 – created after Ms Brophy made Tusla aware of her mistake – Ms Argue was reminded of how it still contained one of the three incorrect sentences that Ms Brophy had added to Ms D’s file, namely that the perpetrator threatened to hurt Ms Y’s father if she spoke out.

The Garda notification was sent from Ms Argue’s email. She conceded that it was sent from her email but she couldn’t recall doing so. She also said couldn’t recall studying the file before sending the garda notification.

Asked if she accepted this was a very sloppy amendment, Ms Argue replied “In what way?”.

Given that Ms Brophy sought all copies of the incorrect file to be returned to RIAN, Ms Argue was asked if she arranged this but she said she can’t recall.

Ms Argue was asked if there had been gossip or rumours in the Cavan social work department about Sgt McCabe.

She said she couldn’t remember specifically and that conversations tended to be of a personal nature and not what was going on in newspapers.

Under cross-examination from Michael McDowell, SC, for Sgt McCabe, Mr McDowell recalled Ms Argue’s statement to the tribunal submitted on March 21, 2017.

He put it to Ms Argue that she attempted to mislead the tribunal’s investigators by failing to mention, in her statement, that she had been consulted by Ms Connolly when she was creating the Garda notification and the intake records on Sgt McCabe’s children.

Ms Argue rejected this assertion.

Mr McDowell asked Ms Argue why she thought Sgt McCabe’s file was suddenly dealt with on April 30, 2014.

Ms Argue couldn’t recall but said, at the time, they were dealing with unallocated cases in the ‘Measuring The Pressure’ system they operated.

Mr McDowell suggested instead of the Measuring The Pressure system, perhaps, a little bit of pressure had come on her to deal with the file as nothing had “budged” in nine months.

Ms Argue said she couldn’t say if there was any pressure put on her on that particular day on that particular file.

Mr McDowell suggested somebody might have gone to her and asked what’s happening to the Sgt McCabe file. She said she didn’t recall anybody going to her about the file.

Judge Peter Charleton listed a sequence of events to Ms Argue before Sgt McCabe’s file was dealt with on April 30, 2014.

These included former taoiseach Enda Kenny getting a dossier of allegations compiled by Sgt McCabe in February 2014, Irish Independent journalist Paul Williams calling to Ms D’s house and interviewing her; former Garda commissioner Martin Callinan resigning in March, Paul Williams writing further articles in April; Ms D making a complaint to GSOC (which subsequently found there was no case to answer) on April 29, 2014 and then “lo and behold” Laura Connolly plucking Sgt McCabe’s file from the cabinet randomly the very next day.

Judge Charleton also conceded that while the Irish Independent would like everyone to read it, they don’t; however he suggested it’s likely somebody in Ms Argue’s office did read the Irish Independent.

Ms Argue repeated that, at the time Sgt McCabe’s file was revisited in April 2014 – the first time since August 2013 – they were looking at unallocated cases and Sgt McCabe’s was such a case.

At the very end of Ms Argue’s evidence yesterday, Mr McDowell reminded the tribunal that after Ms D made a complaint against Sgt McCabe in December 2006, the gardai were obliged to contact the HSE which they did.

The person to take the call from the gardai, regarding this notification, was Ms Argue.

Readers will recall that the tribunal has already heard that the social worker who wrote an acknowledgment letter to the then superintendent in Baileboro Garda Station pertaining to the same allegation by Ms D, on January 2, 2007 was Gerry Lowry.

Earlier: ‘I Don’t Know If It Was Through Intention. I Can’t Explain It’

Previously: Another Day, Another Error

Leah Farrell/Rollingnews

Clair Tobin, centre, and Linda Creamer, right, arriving at the Disclosures Tribunal this morning

This morning.

At the Disclosures Tribunal in Dublin Castle.

It is continuing to hear evidence about how a 2006 allegation of inappropriate touching by a Ms D against Sgt Maurice McCabe became conflated with a 2013 allegation of rape concerning another person entirely and how this false allegation of rape was circulated between the counselling service Rian, Tusla and An Garda Siochana.

It’s part of a wider investigation into allegations of a smear campaign orchestrated by former Garda Commissioner Martin Callinan with the knowledge of Garda Commissioner Noirin O’Sullivan against Sgt Maurice McCabe.

A short-ish timeline of some of the evidence heard to date can be read here.

Yesterday and this morning, the tribunal heard evidence from regional social worker Clair Tobin who has worked with the Sexual Assault Response Team since June 2016. She previously worked with Tusla.

The Sexual Assault Response Team was set up in 2016, the tribunal heard, in response to the number of retrospective allegations which were unallocated and on waiting lists to obtain an allocated social worker.

Readers will recall Sgt McCabe’s flawed case was such a case.

Ms Tobin was allocated Sgt McCabe’s case in August 2016 – some eight months after Kay McLoughlin, of Tusla, sent Sgt McCabe a Barr letter (a letter which notifies an alleged abuser of the allegation made against them) in December 2015 which stated Tusla was investigating Sgt McCabe in relation to an allegation of rape which did not pertain to him at all.

This Barr letter was sent after Ms McLoughlin’s superior Gerry Lowry – who knew this allegation was incorrect – failed to open an email attachment which contained Ms Loughlin’s draft letter containing the fall allegation in May 2015.

Readers will recall that Sean Costello, SC, for Sgt McCabe, wrote back to Ms McLoughlin to say the allegation was wholly untrue in January 2016 but Tusla did not respond to Mr Costello until June 20, 2016.

Further to this, Ms Tobin, of SART, has given evidence to the tribunal about its review of the case and Tusla’s handling of the case.

She explained the purpose of their review yesterday to the tribunal, saying:

“It probably had a dual function in terms of identifying what had or hadn’t happened on the file, but also to indicate what needed to happen.”

Asked if she had any document or guidance in writing, which set out the purpose of the review, she said: No.

Yesterday, Ms Tobin told the tribunal that, on June 27 – seven days after Tusla finally responded to Mr Costello – she and her co-worker, Lisa O’Loghlen, met with MIchael Cunningham, who was the then duty social work team leader in Cavan, and he gave them a number of files and a synopsis of the files.

These files included those of Ms D and Sgt McCabe.

Yesterday, she told the tribunal:

“I suppose when we took the file we were quite, I suppose, for want of a better word, horrified as to how the case had been managed… I suppose our role within SART was to deal with the allegation and the assessment of the allegation and we felt that there was a bigger issue behind that.”

Yesterday and this morning, Diarmuid McGuinness SC, for the tribunal, went through a list of documents pertaining to Ms D and Sgt McCabe and, as he went through them, he asked Ms Tobin if she had seen the said documents in the files they were given.

Some she did, some she didn’t, the tribunal heard.

For example, based on the information given to Ms Tobin, she was unaware that a Garda notification was made in respect of Sgt McCabe by Laura Connolly in 2014. Readers will recall it was Ms Connolly who also created intake records on Sgt McCabe’s then four children, two of whom were adults, under the direction of Eileen Argue.

Ms Tobin told the tribunal she didn’t know of the Garda notification until RTE’s Prime Time aired the matter in February 9, 2017.

In addition, Ms Tobin said the files she was given didn’t make clear that the DPP had instructed no prosecution on the basis that no criminal offence had taken place.

The tribunal heard the minutes of a management meeting on April 21, 2007, in which it was noted that the file returned from the DPP no prosecution, was not in the file given to Ms Tobin.

This morning, as she continued to give evidence under cross-examination, from Michael McDowell SC, Ms Tobin was asked about the material that was and was not on the file.

Ms Tobin said she couldn’t comment on whether some of the material had possibly been deleted from the file or just wasn’t on the file. But she agreed that some material had not been forwarded to her.

Asked if realising this later made her feel more horrified in regards to the handling of the case by Gerry Lowry – Tusla’s area manager – she conceded that yes, she was more concerned and more horrified.

Mr McDowell sought to confirm with Ms Tobin that it couldn’t have been the case that she just skipped through the file and missed crucial documents.

She said:

“I’m very careful and given the gravity of what was on the file, I would have made sure I read everything on the file.”

Mr McDowell also asked if there was no evidence in the file from Mr Lowry in which he admitted something had gone very, very wrong and was accepting of his role. Ms Tobin agreed.

Judge Peter Charleton, who’s overseeing the proceedings, asked Ms Tobin if, given what she knows now, did she think she had been sent a sanitised version of the file, as opposed to the file with all the “warts” and “defects”

She said: Yes.

Asked, why this might have been the case, she said:

“I don’t know if it was through intention. I can’t explain it. Stuff wasn’t put on the file when it should have been.”

Ms Tobin added that this is not necessarily unique to this case as people do fail to put things on file but she said items missing from this file were significant.

Judge Charleton asked Ms Tobin if she was aware of the phrase “covering yourself in paper” and proposed that it can sometimes mean removing paper that’s embarrassing.

Ms Tobin said she couldn’t tell if it was professional negligence or intentional and said she couldn’t speak for Cavan’s professional practice of day-to-day operations but she said:

“In my own practice, you make sure everything on that file, that should be on that file, is on that file.”

Mr Charleton said the missing documents, in the worse case, could indicate a cover-up, or secondly, though not as bad, could indicate an “instinctive reaction to circle the wagons and to pretend things weren’t as bad as they were”. He wondered if Ms Tobin had a third category.

She said:

“I really don’t know. It’s really poor management of the file. I think it should have been allocated to deal with straight away.”

She added that if such allegation is made against a member of An Garda Siochana, a teacher or someone in her own organisation – in SART, the matter would be immediately responded to and allocated.

Linda Creamer, service director for Dublin North East with Tusla, is also giving evidence today.

She told the tribunal that the matter should never have been handed over to SART and that she believed somebody in the role of area manager, such as Gerry Lowry, should have been able to handle it.

Asked if she believed it was a case of a “hot potato” being handed over to SART, Ms Creamer said:

“Well they believe SART had more skills then they had. My view would be the pincipal social manager and area manager should be well able to deal with a file like this.”

She said the reason given about skills was not a valid reason to hand it over.

Ms Creamer was also asked if she believed SART was given a sanitised file, she said she didn’t believe anything “sinister” was going on but that there was incompetence in relation to the governance of the file and that there might have been an effort to pass it on for somebody else to take responsibility.

Asked to comment on the possibility of any Garda influence on how the matter was handled, Ms Creamer said that it would be easier for her to agree with that possibility but that she believed it was “absolute incompetence”.

“I don’t believe there was collusion.”

Ms Creamer also said that she would never allow for child intake forms to be created on Sgt McCabe’s children without speaking with Sgt McCabe first.

Eileen Argue, whom the tribunal has already heard directed Laura Connolly to create these intake forms in 2014, will be giving evidence this afternoon.

Previously: Disclosures Tribunal: At A Glance

Another Day, Another Error

Leah Farrell/Rollingnews

UPDATE:

After Ms Creamer was finished giving evidence, she said the following:

“Chairperson, if I could just take the opportunity, it’s — I have been here for the week listening to the evidence and I just want to say that Tusla is in a major transition programme. I am not making that as an excuse for what has happened, but we genuinely are extremely sorry to the McCabe family.

“To go through such stress and receive such a letter at such a time – at any time – is completely unacceptable. And we are in the business of putting families together and supporting families to be together, we are not in the business of trying to destroy families.

“And stress like this could have gone that route, so I just want to acknowledge Tusla’s apology for what has happened to the McCabes and we will cooperate with anything else in the future. Thank you.”

Sgt Maurice McCabe arriving at the Disclosures Tribunal in Dublin Castle this morning

Further to our post this morning in relation to some of the most recent evidence given at the Disclosures Tribunal…

Some readers felt the post was too complicated and involved so much scrolling (due to an ongoing fault in the ‘Read More’ feature of our Android App which should be fixed next week) it has resulted in cases of thumb chafing.

Below is a shorter, comprehensive and scroll-friendly timeline of of the evidence heard so far…

– Ms D’s father, a sergeant, worked with Sgt McCabe in Baileboro when Sgt McCabe was sergeant in charge.

– Sgt McCabe brought disciplinary measures against Mr D for ‘ serious misbehaviours‘ on duty, in January 2006 .

– As a result, Mr D lost his position and was reverted to other duties

– Mr D’s daughter, then 14, made a complaint to An Garda Siochana against Sgt McCabe in December 2006 claiming that, during a game of hide and seek in 1998, Sgt McCabe made a ‘humping’ motion towards her.

– The DPP rejected the allegation in 2007 and even queried how the complainant’s parents could have reached the conclusion that a sexual assault had occurred even as described.

– The Garda Commissioner, Sgt McCabe’s employer, was made aware of this matter.

– In 2013, Ms D raised the allegation with Rian counsellor Laura Brophy.

– Ms Brophy sent a referral to Tusla even though there was no need to as the matter had already been referred.

– Ms Brophy first made a verbal referral – which was correct in so far as it related to just the 2006 allegation.

– However, Ms Brophy also made a written referral. In this referral, Ms Brophy mistakenly added a completely separate allegation of rape against a Ms Y to Ms D’s file. The effect of this mistake was that it was suggested Sgt McCabe raped Ms D.

– Days after Ms Brophy’s verbal and written referrals were made to Tusla, social work team leader Keara McGlone opened a file on Sgt McCabe. This file was based on the verbal report given by Ms Brophy so it related solely to the 2006 allegation and not the false rape allegation.

– Ms McGlone left a handwritten comment ‘Duty to guard notify and await assessment or allocation’ on a form added to Sgt McCabe’s file.

– Subsequent to that, Ms McGlone sent a private and confidential email to superintendent Noel Cunningham in which she sought a meeting to discuss Sgt McCabe.

– Supt Cunningham never responded to this letter. This wasn’t an official Garda notification.

– Ms McGlone’s file on Sgt McCabe then sat in a filing cabinet from August 2013 until April 30, 2014.

– On April 29, 2014, Ms D made a complaint to GSOC in relate to the Garda investigation into her 2006 allegation.

– On April 30, 2014, Laura Connolly plucked Sgt McCabe’s file randomly from a cabinet which contained unallocated cases.

– Ms Connolly sent a notification of Sgt McCabe’s file to the gardai even though she was aware the 2006 allegation had already been sent to the gardai and DPP had ordered for no charges to be brought.

– While sending the Garda notification, Ms Connolly made a monumental error by combining both the 2006 allegation, which was found to have no foundation by the DPP, and the 2013 allegation of rape pertaining to Ms Y which had nothing to do with Ms D but was wrongly recorded by counsellor Laura Brophy. The Garda notification therefore appeared to say that Ms D was accusing Sgt McCabe of raping Ms D during a game of hide and seek.

– Ms Connolly told the tribunal when faced with a verbal and written referral pertained to the same matter, she would “follow the content of the written report from the professional”.

– Ms Connolly wasn’t made aware of the Ms D/Ms Y mix-up until she had an interview with the tribunal’s investigators on June 23, 2017.

– Ms Connolly told the tribunal that she was never informed of her mistake by anyone – neither her colleagues not solicitors.

– On April 30, 2014, Ms Connolly also created intake forms on Sgt McCabe’s then four children, two of whom were aged over 18, under the direction of Eileen Argue.

– After Ms Connolly’s Garda notification was sent, Superintendent Leo McGinn notified Ms D’s father of the wrongly perceived allegation of rape.

– Mr D told Ms D.

– In May 2014, Ms D told counsellor Laura Brophy that there was an allegation of rape against Sgt McCabe wrongly attributed to her.

– Ms Bophy immediately amended Ms D’s report and wrote and hand-delivered a letter to social services in Cavan.

– Tusla’s Eieen Argue sent an email to Gerry Lowry at 11.13 [unclear if it’s am or pm], which was copied to Louise Carolan, telling him of what Ms Brophy had told Tusla in regards to “MMcC”

– Two months later, in August 2014, Mr Lowry replied by way of principle social worker
– and social worker Kay McLoughlin’s direct supervisor – Seamus Deeney in August 2014,
with a one-line reply: “Dear Seamus, This should not have been sent to me.”

– A year later, on May 7, 2015, social workers Kay McLoughlin and Gail Penders were reviewing files when Ms McLoughlin sent Mr Lowry and Mr Deeny an email about Sgt McCabe, raising her concerns that he hadn’t been contacted since 2007. Ms McLoughlin said in the email: “It has come back in again due to media coverage of Mr. McCabe.”

– In this email, Ms McLoughlin attached a draft Barr letter (a letter which notifies an alleged abuser of the allegation made against them) which she had drafted and which stated that Tusla was investigating Sgt McCabe in relation to an allegation of rape.

– Mr Lowry – who knew the allegation of rape was false – never opened the attachment and never saw the incorrect Barr letter.

– On December 29, 2015, the Barr letter was sent to Sgt McCabe – informing him that Tusla was investigating him for rape.

– Sean Costello, SC, for Sgt McCabe, wrote back to Ms McLoughlin to say the allegation was wholly untrue in January 2016.

– Tusla didn’t reply to Mr Costello until June 20, 2016.

– The matter was referred from Tusla to the new SART [Sexual Assault Response Team] which was set up in August 2016.

Earlier: Another Day, Another Error

Previously: ‘There Isn’t An Error In His Favour’

Leah Farrell/Rollingnews