Tag Archives: John Barrett

Top: Maurice and Lorraine McCabe arrive to the Disclosures Tribunal last week; Above from left: Head of HR at An Garda Siochana John Barrett, former Chief Administration Officer Cyril Dunne, Michael McDowell SC, for Sgt Maurice McCabe and Supreme Court Judge Peter Charleton


At the Disclosures Tribunal.

Head of HR at An Garda Siochana John Barrett resumed giving evidence, before Supt Noel Cunningham was questioned (more about Supt Cunningham’s evidence later).

Mr Barrett claims that, following a meeting involving former Garda Commissioner Noirin O’Sullivan and former Chief Administration Officer Cyril Dunne, he was asked to stay back and Mr Dunne made a comment to him in relation to Sgt Maurice McCabe and the O’Higgins Commission of Investigation which took place in 2015.

He says that he was told by Mr Dunne “we’re going to go after him in the Commission”.

Mr Barrett said he believes the “we” was a reference to the executive of An Garda Siochana.

Mr Dunne – who is scheduled to give evidence tomorrow afternoon – denies this ever happened.

Mr Barrett didn’t take a note of this alleged remark and can’t specifically recall when this meeting took place.

But, based on looking at emails, he believes it was on May 13, 2015 – the night before the hearings of the O’Higgins Commission of Investigation began.

On Friday, the tribunal heard Conor Dignam SC, for Ms O’Sullivan, say she was in the UK on May 13, 2015 and left the UK at 5.35pm.

Yesterday Mr Dignam told the tribunal Mr Dunne has said he wasn’t in Garda HQ – where the alleged meeting took place – from 6pm on May 13, 2015 as he had “important” meeting related to a sports club in Wicklow of which he is honorary secretary.

In any case.

Mr Barrett maintains the remark was made to him and Mr Dunne maintains it wasn’t.

Yesterday, Judge Peter Charleton, who is overseeing the tribunal, put specific questions to Mr Barrett.

He asked Mr Barrett about his view of Noirin O’Sullivan as a Garda Commissioner in 2015 and why he didn’t contact her immediately after this comment was made to him.

He asked why it took him two years to tell Sgt McCabe about the alleged remark.

And he then asked him about his relationship with Mr Dunne – drawing attention to the fact there had been newspaper reports that suggested there was some conflict between them.

The questioning prompted Michael McDowell SC, for Sgt McCabe, to say that if questions put to Mr Barrett might infer that Mr Barrett had some kind of grudge against Mr Dunne then either the judge, or some counsel, should ask Mr Barrett out straight if that was the case.

Some tetchy exchanges then followed between Mr McDowell and Judge Charleton.

This is how it unfolded…

Judge Peter Charleton: “When we go back to this time, you are in Human Resources, it’s 2015, it’s early 2015, and you are in the job quite a short time, I think. You joined, what, the end of 2014?

John Barrett: “Yes, 3 October ’14.”

Charleton: “Yes. So you had got to know the Garda Commissioner by then?

Barrett: She was — I met her before I accepted the job. She hadn’t interviewed me, but I went to meet her in her office before I joined the job.

Charleton: And you made what offer?

Barrett:I felt that she was going to try and bring about change in the organisation.

Charleton: Did you feel she was a genuine person?

Barrett: At that point I had absolutely no difficulty with the mission that she set out to me.

Charleton: That is not the question I am asking you, Mr. Barrett.

Barrett: Yes, I did feel she was genuine.

Charleton: Did you feel she was a truthful person?

Barrett: I did, I did, absolutely.

Charleton: All right. And did you feel, in terms of the engagement with Maurice McCabe and the whole idea of whistleblowers perhaps not being right, not always necessarily being saints, but the necessity to listen to them and try to learn from what they were saying —

Barrett: Absolutely.

Charleton: — did you feel she was genuine about that?

Barrett: Yes, I believed that.

Charleton: And did you feel the efforts that you were putting in place, including the lengthy efforts that are detailed in the minute where you were driving along in your car, did you feel that they were actually engaged in, not from the point of view of public relations but from the point of view of setting things to right?

Barrett: I absolutely believed that, and at the end of that journey, Judge, I was quite pleased with the day’s work, yes.

Charleton: You were personally investing heavily in this as well?

Barrett: Yes, my credibility, my time, my energy.

Charleton: In the event that this turned into a success, clearly it would be a success that you would have led as Head of Human Resources?

Barrett: It would have been a collective effort. And I am not driven by individual accolades, but I would have taken some considerable personal pride had it been successful.

Charleton: So there you are, you are in May, you are in the job seven months.


Charleton: And your boss turns to you, having asked you to remain behind after a meeting with the Commissioner, who is genuinely attempting to move the Gardaí forward and to engage with those who make protected disclosures, and your boss tells you: by the way, we are going to ruin it all before the O’Higgins Commission?

Barrett: He didn’t say that.

Charleton: Well, I am finding it hard to construe it any other way. We are going after Maurice McCabe before the O’Higgins Commission. How do I construe that, Mr Barrett?

Barrett: I am alarmed by it, but I don’t understand it fully, Judge, that is the reality. I didn’t understand.

Charleton: You told me, Mr Barrett, that you had a visceral reaction to it. Visceral, of course, refers to your stomach, your intestines.

Barrett: Yes.

Charleton: Why did you have a visceral reaction to it?

Barrett: I have genuinely invested, time, energy, commitment in trying to move this thing to a point away from conflict. Maybe it’s naivete on my part, but I thought, simply, Judge O’Higgins was going to review all of the facts of the matters that were arising on the terms of reference and make a judgment on those facts, that it wasn’t going to be adversarial in its — that was my view. And clearly, what I had — just the shot fired across my bows was, this is something different. And I was conscious in hearing it, and it’s easy to be wise after the fact, of Maurice — of Sergeant McCabe’s doubts about the bona fides of the organisation when we first met in February. And I hadn’t won Sergeant McCabe over to suddenly believe that the organisation was, you know, after changing its perspective entirely. So this was a work in progress.

Charleton: And your visceral reaction, is what I asked you about.

Barrett: I felt my stomach tighten.

Charleton: Why?

Barrett: I have — it’s just a feature of who I am, sir. I respond to things physically if they either shock or surprise.

Charleton: Did you feel that the process you had started was going to be ruined in consequence of what Mr Dunne revealed to you?

Barrett:  I didn’t know that, but what I did know was, the process I was embarked upon was bearing fruit and I was protective of it.

Charleton: Well, what interpretation did you put on the remark you say that Mr Dunne made to you?

Barrett: The only thing that I, as I said in the transcript, the only thing that I did was, I took a further look at the terms of reference and left the —

Charleton: That is not what I am asking you. I am not interested in the terms of reference. I know the terms of reference. Right. You looked at them. What interpretation did you put on the remark that Mr Dunne made to you?

Barrett: That there would be conflict at O’Higgins of some sort.

Charleton: And how would that impact on the work that you embarked on?

Barrett: I felt that it would damage it. I felt it could possibly damage it.

Charleton: Do you mean possibly, or were you more definite about that, given your visceral reaction?

Barrett: Possibly. It could possibly damage it.

Charleton: Was it not appropriate, therefore, for you to ring the Garda Commissioner, a person whose genuineness you believed in and a person you trusted, and said, look, there may be a problem in relation to the O’Higgins Commission and the way it’s being approached, could we have a word about it?

Barrett: I very much regret not doing that, Judge.

Charleton: I am wondering why you didn’t do it? I am not wondering about your regrets, Mr. Barrett. I am wondering why you didn’t do it?

Barrett: I think that I was probably swept forward into all of the other things that were going on and didn’t do it and let the matter unfold. To a degree, I vested trust in the process. I perhaps shouldn’t have.

Charleton: Maurice McCabe trusted you?

Barrett: He did.

Charleton: And by not doing this, you were prepared to see somebody else, on your account of things, undermine his trust in the organisation, of which, by the way, you are a part.

Barrett: It weighs heavily on me.

Charleton: Whether it weighs heavily on you now or not, is neither here nor there. I am asking, why did you not react by ringing the Garda Commissioner and asking her what was the explanation for this and pointing out to her, look, there may be issues ahead in the event that this particular strategy is followed through, which conflicts with the strategy that we had already agreed and settled upon in numerous meetings?

Barrett: I don’t have a good answer to that, Judge. I don’t. I should have, and I didn’t. I was troubled by it. And then the matters unfolded over the coming weeks. I sought to continue to build a bridge with Maurice. The record shows that it’s sustained. Many of the initiatives that were spoken of, as far back as February, did not continue.

Charleton: It took you two years to tell him about this remark that you say happened.

Barrett: Yes.

Charleton: Why did it take you two years?

Barrett: Because the nature of my engagement — I am representing the organisation in my dealings with him. There are very specific issues arising in that relationship, as I saw it. I was, as I said yesterday — or Friday, in seeking to try and maintain Chinese walls, I wanted to represent the organisation.

Charleton: I really don’t understand this phrase about Chinese walls. I really don’t know what you are talking about when you say “Chinese walls”. It’s a phrase, by the way, that is used in relation to large firms of solicitors that seem to be representing opposite sides of Government agencies through the same firm. Now, I don’t know what it means, but let’s move on. Yourself and Mr Dunne, have you stayed in contact since he left the organisation?

Barrett: I shook his hand when I met him here on the 8th.

Charleton: That’s not what I asked you.

Barrett: We meet periodically.

Charleton: Mr Barrett, that’s not what I asked you.

Barrett: No, we are not socially engaged.

Charleton: Why not?

Barrett: I have no good answer for that. I mean, we had a professional relationship. There are many people for whom I have had — who have been working colleagues that I am not professionally engaged with, and there are people I have long, long engagements with.

Charleton: That is fair enough. For those perhaps who read the newspapers, it may appear that the two of you have been in conflict in relation to the interpretation of certain issues over the course of the last year or so. Would that be correct or incorrect?

Barrett: The issue is the —

Charleton: Forget about the issue. Just please answer the question.

Barrett: On one specific case, yes.

Charleton: On what?

Barrett: The financial irregularities at the Garda College.

Charleton: And you are saying what and he is saying what?

Barrett: Well, this matter was played out in front of the Public Accounts Committee.

Charleton: Just tell me, if you wouldn’t mind, please.

Barrett: The issue of how those matters were investigated and dealt with.

Charleton: And your view on the matter is directly contrary to his?

Barrett: Partly contrary to his. Partly. At the very beginning of that process, which was May of 2015, Cyril and I were in lockstep as to what needed to be done.

Charleton: It’s made headlines, hasn’t it?

Barrett: I haven’t studied the headlines in the last number of days, but I have followed it as it played out in the PAC.

Charleton: Thank you very much.

Barrett: Thank you, sir.

Michael McDowell: Judge, I think if it is going to be found in relation to this witness that he was motivated by a grudge against Mr. Dunne, somebody, yourself or your counsel, should put that —

Charleton: Now, Mr McDowell, that is going too far.

McDowell: Sorry, it’s not.

Charleton: No, it is going too far.

McDowell: Otherwise your questions seem to be irrelevant, Judge.

Charleton: What exactly is the point you are making, Mr. McDowell?

McDowell: Precisely the point I made; that if it is going to be inferred, from the matters that you have just raised with the witness, that he fabricated this remark on the part of Mr. Dunne as part of settling some grudge, that should be put to him fair and square by somebody.

Charleton: And you suggest it should be done by me?

McDowell: You asked the questions about his relationship with Mr. Dunne. Your counsel didn’t. If that is — if it is relevant, I think you should go the whole way with him, Judge.

Charleton: And all the remarks you have made during the course of this Tribunal about this being an inquiry, Mr. McDowell, do they not apply to me as well? Am I not entitled to inquire?

McDowell: Well, I think, Judge —

Charleton: And do you think —

McDowell: May I make this point, Judge?

Charleton: And do you think — well, I need to make a point too, Mr. McDowell, because you are very free with your language.

McDowell: I am not free with my language.

Charleton: Do you think, Mr. McDowell, that all the warnings about the judge entering into the arena are lost or do they not apply in these circumstances?

McDowell: You are not a judge; you are an inquisitor here. And if you have — if it was relevant to make those points to the witness, I think the — that the inference that appears to be blatant in them should be put to him.

Charleton: Mr Dignam asked the questions as well, didn’t he?

McDowell: And Mr Dignam has his instructions. I am just saying that somebody should put this to him. Chairman, can I make this point to you —

Charleton: Well, Mr. McDowell, it very often happens — it seriously very often happens that two people meet, they discuss matters, one comes out saying the following happened and the other comes out saying no, that didn’t happen at all. Now, it could happen, as well, that those people don’t exactly get along. Perhaps it’s because of a lack of an emotional connection that misunderstandings occur, but Mr. McGuinness has cleared it up. There is no misunderstanding here. It’s not a question of, for instance, we are adopting our strategy and it’s not going to be easy for Maurice McCabe. It’s a question of the ‘remark’, in inverted commas, being absolutely correct. Now, I really have to inquire, in circumstances where a person who allegedly made the remark says he didn’t make it and where the person to whom that remark was repeated within weeks, it seems, says, well, that never happened, as to precisely what is going on, and I think I am entitled to do that, Mr. McDowell. And I feel if I didn’t do that, I’d be failing in my duty to make an inquiry.

McDowell: Well, Judge, maybe perhaps I can put the question to the witness then.

Charleton: If you wish to put the question, you are certainly entitled to do so. But please don’t ascribe to me anything that you don’t know is in my mind.

McDowell: Judge, you asked the questions. I queried its relevance other than in this context.

Mr McDowell then went on to question Mr Barrett…

McDowell: Anyway, Mr Barrett, in case anybody would draw the inference from your evidence that you have fabricated this remark by Mr Dunne and that you have done so in part to settle some score with him or because you have a very poor relationship with him or you fell out with him, what have you got to say about that?

Barrett: “None of those assertions are true. Mr Dunne hired me into the organisation. I respect his background, I respect his integrity. We have a difference of view on one significant matter, which related to how we should proceed in relation to the investigation of financial irregularities at the Garda College. That is a matter of public record. I shook his hand here on the 8th January. I feel no animosity whatsoever from Mr Dunne, and that is a matter of fact.

Yesterday’s transcript can be read in full here

Previously: Diametrically Opposed

Former Chief Administration Officer at An Garda Siochana Cyril Dunne and John Barratthead of HR at An Garda Siochana

This afternoon.

At the Disclosures Tribunal.

It has heard sections of a statement given to the tribunal by the head of HR at An Garda Siochana John Barrett.

In his statement, he said:

Prior to the commencement of the O’Higgins Commission hearings, at the conclusion of a meeting in the office of the Chief Administration Officer, Cyril Dunne, Mr Dunne asked me to remain in his office after the other attendees had left and with reference to Sergeant Maurice McCabe, said, “we are going after him in the commission”.

“My role as interlocutor/principal point of contact with Sergeant McCabe was well established at this stage and I indicated my shock and dismay that such an approach would be taken in the O’Higgins Commission.

“I was not present at any of the modules of the O’Higgins Commission but I gained some insights from Sergeant McCabe and other participants and from media coverage.

“As matters unfolded in the autumn of 2016 the collage of scenarios became clearer to me. I believe the work of the tribunal may benefit from understanding the connection between these events.”

The tribunal heard counsel for the tribunal say that Mr Dunne is denying this claim.

Readers should recall Michael Clifford, of the Irish Examiner, previously reported, in June, on Mr Barrett’s statement but the report didn’t include the identity of Mr Dunne.

Related: Garda HR chief told of bid to ‘go after’ McCabe, says file given to tribunal

Earlier: Supt Cunningham And The Chief State Solicitor’s Letter

Head of HR at An Garda Siochana, John Barrett, speaking at a meeting of the Public Accounts Committee in May

Earlier this week.

The head of HR at An Garda Siochana John Barrett wrote an 88-page document to the Public Accounts Committee to assist it further in its inquiries into the financial irregularities at the Garda College in Templemore.

Further to this.

Fiachra Ó Cionnaith, in the Irish Examiner, reports that in his statement, Mr Barrett has told the PAC:

He was subjected to a “whispering campaign”, with his “reward for my persistence” in highlighting garda college financial concerns being “spurious criminal allegations” that he breached the Official Secrets Act by keeping notes on what he found;

That one senior garda sent him documents at the time of his discoveries about the garda college “to suggest that I was aware of all the issues at play and that I did nothing for a number of months”, a claim against Mr Barret that has been proven to be untrue;

That Ms O’Sullivan’s PAC evidence about when she was informed about the garda college concerns is contradicted by clear, private records from the period kept by Mr Barrett;

That garda head of legal affairs Ken Ruane and director of communications Andrew McLindon were subjected to “revised reporting arrangements” and different management structures after highlighting the college issue alongside Mr Barrett.

In a separate section of his 80-page letter, Mr Barrett also called for a forensic examination of the St Raphael’s Garda Credit Union since 1999, which he said is needed to uncover whether EU funds and other money related to the garda college passed through accounts.

He concluded by quoting a book called Lies In The Mirror by current Disclosures Tribunal chair Mr Justice Peter Charleton, in which the retired judge writes that “deceit is the primary instrument for doing evil”.

Claims of ‘whispering campaign’ over Garda College scandal (Irish Examiner)

Head of Human Resources at An Garda Siochana John Barrett at a meeting of the Public Accounts Committee yesterday


Several senior members of the civilian staff at An Garda Siochana attended the Public Accounts Committee to discuss the internal audit report into the Garda College, compiled by head of internal audit Niall Kelly and given to the PAC earlier this year.

Mr Kelly’s report was carried out for head of human resources John Barrett, who started his job in October 2014, becoming aware of financial irregularities at the college in June 2015.

Mr Kelly’s report found concerns similar to ones previously highlighted in a separate report by Barry McGee in 2008.

Mr Kelly’s report audited expenditure worth €112million from January 1, 2009 to March 31, 2016 and identified 48 separate bank accounts relating to the college.

It found, among other matters, that money was transferred between accounts – for example, €400,000 was transferred from its bar account to its restaurant account, while €100,000 was transferred from its Sportsfield Co Limited to the Garda Boat Club, a private sports club.

It also found 37% of its laundry and services account had nothing to do with laundry or services and, instead, was spent on meals/entertainment, contributions to charity, contributions to parish clergy, and “golf society”.

In addition, rent worth €124,903 was collected for the use of Dromard Farm even though the OPW legally owned the land and, therefore, was entitled to the money.

Readers will recall how Garda Commissioner Noirin O’Sullivan told PAC on May 4 that she first learned of the concerns on July 27, 2015 and that, the following day (July 28, 2015) she set up a steering committee to look into the matters.

Further to this…

Those attending PAC yesterday included Mr Kelly; Mr Barrett; Michael Culhane – Executive Director, Finance and Services; Ken Ruane – Head of Legal Services; Joseph Nugent – Chief Administrative Officer; Michael Howard – former Head of the Garda Audit Committee.

Some notes from the meeting:

– PAC heard that, on June 30, 2015, Garda’s head of legal affairs Ken Ruane met Mr Barrett and was told about the issues relating to the college. Mr Ruane was also told that the matters had been reported to the Garda’s chief administration officer Cyril Dunne who passed them on to Ms O’Sullivan. Mr Ruane told PAC he had notes to prove his concerns were passed to Ms O’Sullivan.

– PAC heard that the steering group to look into the Garda College issues was in operation since July 2, 2015.

– None of the civilian staff at PAC could say definitively if An Garda Siochana is tax compliant.

– Head of Legal Affairs in An Garda Síochána Ken Ruane told the PAC he was asked to change minutes he took of a meeting of the steering group, on August 6, 2015, by the CAO Cryil Dunne.

– In a letter from Michael Culhane to Noirin O’Sullivan in October 2015, Mr Culhane asked: “Is JB (John Barrett) unwittingly guilty of a criminal offence under the Official Secrets Act?” Mr Barrett  told PAC he sought, directly and through his solicitor, to get this letter six times but was denied. He eventually got the letter but 85% of it was redacted. At PAC, Mr Culhane admitted this claim was unwise.

– In a letter Michael Culhane sent to Niall Kelly in February of this year, he accused Mr Kelly of being unprofessional, misleading and mischievous. At PAC, Mr Culhane withdrew the claim.

– The PAC heard senior gardaí have made out cheques, of up to thousands of euro, to themselves.

– Mr Kelly said they are now being examined to see if these cheques have been vouched for – with one audit going back to 1998.

– Social Democrat TD Catherine Murphy asked Mr Kelly if there was any indication of any Templemore monies being sent to a bank account in Dublin under the control of a former senior Garda officer. Mr Kelly said he’d rather not answer that question because it’s the subject of audit.

– In a June 25 email sent by Barry McGee, the author of a report in 2008 which identified many of the issues/concerns highlighted in Niall Kelly’s 2017 report, to John Barrett, Mr McGee wrote:

I think the problem in approaching the solving of this, is that because of the potential negative reputational risk for the organisation – in that once this starts to be sorted it hits the public media, either though audit etc, it could have very big ramifications – like the accounting officer [Garda Commissioner Noirin O’Sullivan] appearing before the PAC, etc – so it is how to solve this quiety without risking exposure – again this is just my opinion – so this report was quiet [sic] sensitive – Michael [Culhane] has said it you wish to meet to discuss this etc might be useful – It is not necessarily a nice report, I would like to think that the report is more based on systems and how systems  were set up and evolved possibly incorrectly particularly with view to the way government accounting and government accounting regulations apply currently.”

“For example, today or at the moment, the Garda Siochana organisation cannot for example open a bank account without seeking sanction from the DPERs, whereby if you have to write to them setting the purpose of the bank account and they give sanction for the same to open it – and of course setting up companies or entities would need ministerial sanction I would imagine as it is a big deal in principle to set up a sub company from a department – for example,

in terms of the purchase of land, this is a problem for the college because the Garda Commissioner is not meant to hold any lands under legislation as far as I am aware and such lands will have to be transferred by some mechanism to the OPW.

– Mr Kelly told PAC that, following a meeting on October 1, 2015, in which Noirin O’Sullivan perused the 2008 McGee Report, she felt the 2008 report was “overly critical”. Mr Kelly also said there was a reticence among Commissioner and others to accept the conclusions of the 2008 report.

Meanwhile, just before the meeting finished up last night, Mr Barrett said the following:

“Chairman, I come before you knowing the democratic power of this institution you represent the people of Ireland, you are the elected representatives. And I come here hoping to leave, having answered your questions fully and thoroughly.

I see this as a very significant matter for an organisation who must enjoy the trust of the people of Ireland, who must enjoy that trust because the powers that can be exercised – caution, arrest, detention – are of such constitutional significance that we need to have our house, not just in order, but in absolute order.

“So I sit here with a sense of embarrassment that we haven’t. But with no sense of personal regret that I raised this issue and that I continue to believe that I did the right thing in persisting.

“And there’s credit due to people on my right and on my left for their assistance in this regard. But I think it is clear, I feel quite frankly, that I didn’t have universal support and that reality is a reality that I want you to consider.

“I look, as I said to Mr [David] Cullinane, I look for no bouquets in this, I feel that I am doing my job but I want you to understand it’s not easy. And the assistance that you can give in ensuring that the standards that are required of us are demanded by you consistently and that we deliver – that will embolden others to do the right thing and to step forward in difficult situations. That is a key cultural change that you can help make.”

The PAC meeting can be watched back in full by downloading the video files from here [Committee Room 3].

Previously: What’s Another Smear

‘A Bank Account In Dublin Under The Control Of A Former Senior Garda Officer’

‘I Was Counselled To Be Very Careful’

An Garda Siochana’s executive director in finance and services Michael Culhane, head of internal audit Niall Kelly, head of human resources John Barrett at PAC this morning

You may recall head of human resources at An Garda Siochana John Barrett.

He was the civilian member of the guards who told Garda Commissioner Noirin O’Sullivan about the financial irregularities at the Garda College in Templemore, Co Tipperary on July 27, 2015.

This is the date Ms O’Sullivan told the PAC, on May 4, that she first heard of the irregularities.

Mr Barrett claims they, and others, discussed the matters for more than two hours. Ms O’Sullivan said they were discussed over a “very brief” meeting while having tea.

You may also recall how, in his notes, of the July 2015 meeting, Mr Barrett maintains he was “counselled to be very careful” when he “referred to the loss of all books of account prior to a date which coincided with the retirement of a restaurant manager”.

In September 2015, Mr Barrett urged Ms O’Sullivan to inform the Minister for Justice Frances Fitzgerald and the Comptroller and Auditor General (C&AG) of his concerns about Templemore but Ms Fitzgerald wasn’t informed until some weeks later.

Further to this…

Several civilian members of An Garda Siochana are before the Public Accounts Committee today.

These include:

Niall Kelly – Head of Internal Audit (author of the audit report); John Barrett – Executive Director, Human Resources and People Development; Michael Culhane – Executive Director, Finance and Services; Ken Ruane – Head of Legal Services; Joseph Nugent – Chief Administrative Officer; Michael Howard – former Head of the Garda Audit Committee.

Mr Kelly, who was the author of Garda College interim audit report on serious financial irregularities at the Garda College, was the only person to give an opening statement to the Public Accounts Committee.

In it, he said:

“In regards to interference and non co-operation and withholding of information from internal audit, there are three periods of time that should be considered. Firstly, the period from 2008 to 2011. Secondly, the period from July 2015 to March 2016 and thirdly, the period from September 2016 to March 2017.”

Further to this…

Readers should note documentation sent to the Public Accounts Committee, ahead of today’s meeting, includes a letter which was sent from the executive director of finance Michael Culhane to Noirin O’Sullivan on October 25, 2015, urging her to investigate Mr Barrett.

In relation to this letter…

Catherine Connolly: “As a lay person looking at it, and we have all these reports and they haven’t been acted on, isn’t that right? 2006, I don’t know what happened the 2006 report. But the 2008 [McGee] report made very strong recommendations. Your colleague Mr Kelly says some were acted on, some were reversed and some weren’t acted on at all. Can you stand over that?”

Michael Culhane: “Well, I can’t stand over that because I mean, I can only…”

Connolly: “You can or you can’t?”

Culhane: “I can-well in terms of, I can only give advice.”

Connolly: “No, can you stand over that, sorry? Do you accept that the 2008 [report] wasn’t implemented.”

Culhane: “I do yes.”

Connolly: “Ok, and that parts of it that were implemented were reversed, that’s what Mr Kelly says clearly in…”

Culhane: “I accept his evaluation.”

Connolly: “You accept that, ok. Have you confidence in your colleague Mr [John] Barrett?

Culhane:I accept his professionalism, yes.”

Connolly: “You do. But, at the same time, you’d like him to be examined under the Official Secrecy Act?

Culhane: “Well, I had concerns about, I had concerns about, in terms of what he actually, the manner in which he was treating confidential documents.”

Connolly: “And do you still have concerns?”

Culhane: “Well, given the passage of time, and on reflection, no I don’t.”

Connolly: “Ok, and do you regret doing that?”

Culhane:I suppose with the benefit of hindsight, it probably wasn’t wise to make that statement.

Connolly: “Ok.”

A few seconds later

John Barrett:I have asked three times myself personally, four times through my solicitor to have the document that has just been referred to, that was released to your committee [PAC] yesterday, given to me. 85% of the document, that eventually was released under Freedom of Information – consider how this might play – was redacted in protection of the very issues that the Finance Director has now discussed. That reflects the situation in its reality.

“And his correspondence was made available to your committee, I think it’s important that you have it. I discovered the existence of that letter almost a year to the day after it had been written. I think it is appalling that such information and the interesting inversion of trust that was presented to you, appalls me.

We requested legitimately a letter written about me, that I had no knowledge of, that alleges a potential criminal offence, breaks of natural justice, constitutional procedure, none of that existed. And I discover it, yesterday, as being included in the PAC to this committee.”

Sean Fleming (chairman): “Which letter are we referring to?”

Barrett: “The letter of the 25th of October 2015…”

Alan Kelly:Just to clarfiy, you were not aware that this was, it wasn’t provided to you under the requests that you made, but yet it was provided to this committee.”



Barrett:Yes, sirI wrote directly, myself, when I became aware this letter existed, I asked for a copy…I wrote to the Commissioner three times to the best of my knowledge.”


Sinn Féin TD David Cullinane at PAC this morning


David Cullinane: “There’s been two sets of correspondence. One in relation to Mr Barrett where you attempt to undermine his work and another set of correspondence in relation to Mr Kelly, where you attempt to undermined his work and you say in writing that the report was ‘unprofessional, misleading and mischievous’. So you have a duty and responsibility to inform this committee today, how you believed that his report was unprofessional, misleading and mischievous. You have a duty and you haven’t done that. So please explain to me how the report was unprofessional, misleading and mischievous.”

Culhane: “There’s a lot of working parts in the report and, indeed, in the operation of An Garda Siochana. So, I suppose, by summary of views that I had in terms of the contents of the report, and I again, you’ve said it several times before, but I mean there was a history there, which, in relation to the college which wasn’t adequately explained.”

Cullinane: “Do you believe, one final question: And I want to put this to Mr Kelly and Mr Barrett, do you believe, Mr Kelly, when that letter was written and when Mr Culhane said your report was unprofessional, misleading and mischievous and he went further and asked you to amend your report, did you see that as a direct interference in your report and an attempt to get you to either water down or lessen the content of your report?

Niall Kelly:Yes.”

Cullinane: “Yes. And did you have a similar experience, Mr Barrett?

Barrett: “With respect to the letter of October 15, I never saw the letter until yesterday.”

Cullinane: “But now that you’ve seen it, would you see that as an attempt to undermine…”

Barrett:Absolutely, very deliberate collaring of what I felt was my obligation to deal and illuminate these matters which have long since been left to continue.”

Cullinane: “And do you now see that as serious, Mr Culhane, that we have the head of internal audit and we have the head of human resources, both seeing it in the same way that I can, that you tried to undermine their work. We talked earlier about the circling of the wagons, about, you said it yourself, things should be kept inhouse, do you not see that you are part of the problem? And that you, by what you’ve put in writing and we’ve heard from two senior people, in civilian roles in An Garda Siochana, they felt you were trying to interfere with their work.”

Sean Fleming (chair): “Just answer that last question.”

Culhane: “I don’t see, I don’t see myself as being part of the problem. I think I see myself as being part of the solution because of the actions that I have taken on the issues identified in the 2008 report. I had no desire to undermine the professionalism of these two gentlemen. Niall Kelly is an independent auditor and he produces his reports without any, in terms of, without any need for any reference to me. So, I don’t see that I’d be interfering with his independence.”

Cullinane: “You tried to get him to alter his report. You threatened him with legal action. You said if he did not amend his reports, you would seek legal advice and you would take legal action and you’re sitting there telling me that you did not try to interfere with the work of internal audit. It’s incredible for you to say that. How could you threaten legal action against the head of internal audit, almost unprecedented, and then say ‘that wasn’t an attempt by me to interfere with the work’. You cannot say that Mr Culhane.”

Fleming: “Mr Culhane, today, in front of the PAC, do you still stand over that sentence: “in omitting these acts, the report is unprofessional, misleading and mischievous” today, the 31st of May 2017, would you agree with that today?”

Culhane:On reflection, chairman, I probably, it was an unwise use of those words.

Fleming:Would you like to withdraw that statement?

Culhane: “I think it would be, yes…”

Fleming: “Because before the committee, that statement is in writing before this committee.”

Culhane:Yes I would like to withdraw it yes..”

Fleming: “You’ll withdraw that statement then?”

Culhane: “Yes.”

Fleming: “That’s helpful.”


Labour TD Alan Kelly at PAC earlier today


Barrett: “…in the period that had elapsed from July [2015] when I originally prepared a report to go to Mr [Michael] Howard, through Mr [Cyril] Dunne, and we’re reaching now into the third week of September and I have concerns that the thing is not being treated in the multi-million off-balance sheet as Michael Culhane described it activity that is continuing. It is an active, ongoing enterprise within an organisation that I have line responsibility for. And so, in setting it out very clearly, I do go through the very specific issues that Fennelly raises in relation to what a Section 41[which provides that anything of significant relevance should be brought to the attention of the Minister for Justice] is intended to do and how it is that this applies absolutely to the matters of gravity that I dealt with in my report of the 6th of July. And I was very deliberately putting it on the record.”

Alan Kelly: “How would you see Mr [Cyril] Dunn reacted?”

Barrett: “I think that question could be better put to Mr Dunne but…”

Kelly: “Of course, but I want your opinion.”

Barrett: “My opinion is that we were at that point into a situation where the past history that I’d become aware of was repeating itself, as in the 2008 report, nothing was done, it continued. I felt there was a danger, quite frankly that my report of July 2015 was going to go the way of its predecessors.”

Kelly: “Ok.”


Social Democrat TD Catherine Murphy


Catherine Murphy: “Another thing that strikes me, I’d like to clear a few of these things first, one thing that strikes me is: the idea that you were keeping contemporaneous notes, that you were referencing some of your meetings with Mr [head of legal affairs Ken] Ruane, the idea that the internal auditor [Niall Kelly] is sending himself registered, it is yourself Mr Kelly...?”

John Barrett: “Oh, I do that, I do that.”

Murphy: “I mean that strikes me as a self protection mechanism. Would that be correct?”

Barrett: “Let’s look at what we’ve recently read in our newspapers, concerning whether records were destroyed or whether telecommunications equipment survived. I was very conscious of the fact is that what I was dealing with here was well known, understood for a number of years and the curiosity in my mind was why was this not dealt with expeditiously?”

Murphy: “Yeah.”

Barrett: “Relating to material sums of money, in the public vote, in the period 2004 – 2014, it’s €12.4million of taxpayers’ money…”


More to follow.

Watch live here.

templemoreScreen Shot 2017-05-09 at 17.27.14Screen Shot 2017-05-09 at 17.28.52

From top: Garda College, Templemore; John Barrett, executive director of human resources and people development at An Garda Siochana; Garda Commissioner Noirin O’Sullivan

You may recall how the Garda College in Templemore, Co Tipperary, was the subject of a Public Accounts Committee (PAC) meeting last Thursday.

It followed PAC receiving, last March, a 44-page Garda Internal Audit Section (GIAS) report on serious financial irregularities at the Garda College and a further 13-page interim audit report in relation to how the recommendations of the GIAS report were being implemented.

The interim audit report on the recommendations was carried out by the head of internal audit Niall Kelly.

Among those attending last week’s PAC meeting included Garda Commissioner Nóirín O’Sullivan; Kenneth Ruane, head of legal affairs;  Joseph Nugent, chief administrative officer, Deputy Commissioner Dónall Ó Cualáin, with responsibility for governance and strategy; Michael Culhane, executive director of finance and services; John Barrett, executive director of human resources and people development; and Mr Kelly.

Readers will recall how, during last week’s PAC meeting, Ms O’Sullivan maintained that this meeting was “a very brief conversation” while they were having tea, while Mr Barrett maintained that the meeting last for more than two hours.

Specifically, Ms O’Sullivan said:

“On the 27th of July, I believe there was a very brief conversation in a room after a meeting in Templemore, in which Mr Barrett raised certain issues specifically around some work he was doing when I was present along with the two deputy commissioners and the chief administrative officer. My recollection [as regards the length of the meeting] is very brief.”

Continue reading

Screen Shot 2017-05-09 at 14.16.15

Screen Shot 2017-05-09 at 14.19.58

From top: Taoiseach Enda Kenny and Sinn Féin leader Gerry Adams

This afternoon.

During Leaders’ Questions.

The leader of Sinn Féin Gerry Adams told the Dáil new documentation has been provided to the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) by the executive director of human resources and people development at An Garda Síochána John Barrett.

Readers may recall how Mr Barrett last week told PAC, in the presence of Garda Commissioner Nóirín O’Sullivan, that he held a meeting with Ms O’Sullivan for “over two hours” in which he raised issues about the Garda College in Templemore, while Ms O’Sullivan, in contrast, said it was “brief” while she has “having tea”.

Mr Adams said the new documentation provided to PAC shows further contradictions.

During his exchange with Mr Kenny.

Gerry Adams: “Taoiseach, I understand that documentation has been given to the Public Accounts Committee by John Barrett, which completely contradicts and undermines the account given by the [Garda] Commissioner OSullivan last Thursday about her conversations with Mr Barrett over financial irregularities at Templemore. And this latest development today comes after contradictory statements from the Commissioner O’Sullivan and the executive director of human resources, the aforementioned Mr Barrett. So I want to ask you: why you would then end the never-ending crisis and scandal surrounding the senior management of An Garda Siochana.”


Adams: “Taoiseach, the Commissioner’s position is untenable but it’s not easy to understand why you will not remove her from office. There’s no rational explanation. The majority of parties here in Leinster House now want the Commissioner to go and you need to act in the best interests of An Garda Siochana, for the sake of the people of this state, the Commissioner needs to go and go now. So, will you finally accept this reality and relieve Noirin O’Sullivan from her duties as Commissioner, if she refuses to resign.”

Kenny:  “The Public Accounts Committee and this house, as deputy Adams well knows, is removed from influence of the Oireachtas. And I’m not aware of the papers you refer to being given to the Public Accounts Committee. They have certainly not come into my possession nor should they if they’re given to the chairman or a member of the Public Accounts Committee. I have confidence in the Garda Commissioner to do her job.”

This morning, the Cabinet approved the nomination of Kathleen O’Toole, who is the chief of police in Seattle, to chair the review body dealing with the, with An Garda Síochána. She is an outstanding person of very great experience, both in the legal terms, in policing terms, with a deep understanding of the position that applies here in Ireland. I would expect that nomination to be ratified by Cabinet next week.”

“In addition, the Cabinet also approved this morning the terms of reference for Project Eagle which was a matter that was raised by people here on a number of occasions and, following receipt of further observations, from the Fianna Fail party, and Deputy Wallace, I took those account and had approval given for the terms of reference for that. These are actions that are being taken by Government in respect of matters of public concern.”

Previously: Why The Long Face?

Watch Dáil proceedings live here