Tag Archives: Ms D

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: 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’