Tag Archives: statement

starCnP-ayFW8AAmoWK

From top: Tuesday’s Irish Daily Star; official statement

This afternoon.

A statement released by solicitor Darragh Mackin, of KRW LAW, who is representing Ann Doherty, the twin sister of missing Mary Boyle – in light of a story in yesterday’s Irish Daily Star.

Meanwhile…

Previously: For Your Consideration: Mary Boyle – The Untold Story

Via Darragh Mackin

brendan-griffin-751x1024

CnEz3k8XEAAKiYe

Statement issued by Kerry Fine Gael TD Brendan Griffin, top, this morning calling for a new Fine Gael leader by September.

Call for Kenny to stand down as Fine Gael leader (RTE)

Previously:  A Good Time To Be A Griffin

Pic: Catherine Healy

CnFn62fXYAADbTv

Via Peter Fitzpatrick

Related: Support for Enda Kenny ebbing away among Fine Gael grassroots (Irish Times)

Screen Shot 2016-05-30 at 19.31.15
Former Garda Commissioner Martin Callinan and Garda Commissioner Nóirín O’Sullivan

Commissioner O’Sullivan was not aware of any private meeting between former Commissioner Callinan and Deputy McGuinness as outlined by Deputy McGuinness in the Dáil.

In relation to whistleblowers, Commissioner O’Sullivan has consistently stated that dissent is not disloyalty and as a service we are determined to learn from our experiences. An Garda Síochána agrees that whistleblowers are part of the solution to the problems facing the service.

The Commissioner has recently appointed a Protected Disclosures Manager and an appropriately trained dedicated team will be established to oversee all matters related to whistleblowers.

Transparency Ireland has agreed to work with An Garda Síochána to help ensure protected disclosures and people making them are welcomed and protected in An Garda Síochána.

Garda Commissioner Nóirín O’Sullivan in a statement released this evening.

Meanwhile…

56df37279f83c1af81fa6c9177fad079_400x400

Lorcan Roche Kelly

You may recall the murder of Sylvia Roche Kelly.

The mother of two, from Sixmilebridge, Co Clare, was murdered by Gerry McGrath, from Knockavilla, Co. Tipperary, at The Clarion Hotel in Limerick on December 8, 2007.

McGrath was out on bail –  for attempting to abduct a child, on October 9, 2007 – when he killed Sylvia.

He was also out on bail for assaulting taxi driver Mary Lynch in Virginia, Cavan on April 30, 2007.

Further to this…

Sylvia’s husband and journalist Lorcan Roche Kelly spoke to Seán O’Rourke this morning about An Garda Síochána and his trust in the same.

Lorcan Roche Kelly: “I think the problem with Noirin O’Sullivan – this is nothing personal against Noirin at all, I’m sure she’s a perfectly good Garda – is that she is a commissioner that was appointed internally. She came up through the system that exists within the gardaí for the last however many years and it’s that system that has been the problem. So, to get that system reformed, I don’t think Noirin O’Sullivan should have the public’s confidence in being able to reform it because she is of that system. Like I think if you look over the border, what we saw in 2001 with the Royal Ulster Constabulary being completely transformed into the Police Service of Northern Ireland, it’s, I’m not saying we need to change the name of the Gardaí but it’s that level of reform that the Gardaí now need because they have resisted reform for so long that the reform, I suppose, the actions needed have built up to such an extent that we’re nearly at a root and branch level of reform.”

Seán O’Rourke: “Yeah but again that is very central to her whole approach and that’s what’s being seen now by the new Policing Authority. Was it not a good starting point in itself? I suppose it’s precious little consolation to people like yourself and the [Shane] O’Farrell family, for instance. The Commissioner did say, ‘we are sorry the victims did not get the service they were entitled to’.”

Roche Kelly: “Isn’t that the most mealy-mouthed apology. It’s like: I’m sorry your coffee wasn’t as hot as you wanted it to be. Like this is much more serious..”

O’Rourke: “Ah is it not a bit, and I accept now that nobody knows apart from you and your family the grief that you’ve had to endure but would you not give her a bit more credit it than that?”

Roche Kelly: “To be honest, after nine years and after the, I suppose, the stonewalling we’ve received over the years, it’s very hard for me to look at a guard and say, ‘ok, I trust your bona fides in this’. Like this apology came after the O’Higgins Commission, the apology, when the writing was so clearly on the wall that then, ok, now, an apology was necessary. So rather than making a fulsome apology, the apology was made as a press release, that I didn’t receive, I’d to go on Twitter and ask, ‘does any journalist have this press release so at least I can see it’.”

O’Rourke: “Have you had any direct personal apology yourself, from the gardaí?”

Roche Kelly: “Last week I had a meeting with some gardaí in Dublin with the idea of them outlining the reforms they’re bringing in. So it was, the idea of the meeting was to show what reforms they’re bringing in to show this won’t happen again, I think is where we are.”

O’Rourke:“And they clearly would have been senior. How senior gardaí were they? Was there an assistant commissioner or deputy commissioner among them?”

Roche Kelly: “No.”

O’Rourke: “And were you persuaded by what you heard?”

Roche Kelly: “Again, I’m probably the least persuadable person when it comes to Gardaií reform but no it was..no, I think it’s as simple as that, to be fair.”

O’Rourke: “And what would persuade you, Lorcan?”

Roche Kelly: “I think, in order for a reformed process to have credibility, the first thing you need to say is, ‘ok, the people that need to be reformed shouldn’t be the people that do the reforming’. Like, again, nothing personal against Noirin O’Sullivan, I’m sure she’s a fantastic person and she’s a very good guard, but in order to reform an organisation, you need to bring in an outsider. Like, say, in the corporate world, if you want to change a company, you appoint a new CEO from outside because you can’t appoint an internal appointment because, you’ll say, well that’s just going to be more of the same in the Gardaí. So the Gardaí, as an organisation, have to be beyond reproach and we have spent, I have spent nine years, the Irish media have spent the last month and a half reproaching the Gardaí, saying, ‘look this is where the problems are, what are you going to do to address these problems?’, ‘how are you going to address these problems?’. It’s a constant drumbeat of a question that is landing at the Gardaí’s desk and, in order to address those problems, they need to have an outsider come in. And again, to look at what we saw what was done over the border 15 years ago, so it is not an impossible task but there has to be willingness to do it.”

O’Rourke:To what extant, Lorcan, are your views informed by that experience, that nine years as you say, in the course of which you took a legal action which, I think, you knew would fail, seeking to get fuller information. And then you had the dealings with GSOC and you’re still not satisfied that there is sufficient accountability there clearly.”

Roche Kelly: “When I was doing the research, one of the interesting statistics from GSOC that I found out and you mentioned this yourself with the exoneration of the gardaí in Cavan-Monaghan at a previous report in 2011 was that the way GSOC works is that they can make recommendations for disciplinary action against a guard but they have no power themselves to implement disciplinary commission, that goes to a senior guard. And in 2012, the year my complaint came up, there was 5,600 complaints against gardaí. Over 1,000, I think it was 1,017 of them were put forward for disciplinary action. Of those 1,017, 69 resulted in some disciplinary action. So, if you’re a garda and a complaint is made against you there is a less than 1% chance of you facing any disciplinary action at all. Which, some people could say a lot of the complaints against gardaí may be spurious but I doubt 99% of them are. It’s the culture, and that needs to be highlighted, because it’s a cultural problem, rather than admit there are problems, let’s ignore the problem and move on as an organisation and to move on within the gardaí seems to me to mean, ‘let’s pretend none of this happened’.”

Later

Roche Kelly: “When my wife was murdered, our daughter was in junior infants in primary school, she’s now in first year in secondary school. So her entire primary school life has been based on: where is the answer to these questions? And I haven’t found them. And the only reason that I haven’t found the answers to these questions is because I have been stonewalled by the gardaí. This entire, my entire thing could have been sorted out with two phone calls and a letter eight years ago.”

O’Rourke: “Did you get the answers in the O’Higgins report?”

Roche Kelly: “I got the answers, the factual play that I had known all along. It was, why had the gardaí not admitted that they had made a mistake here; why have they not come out and said, ‘ok, if we had done our job right, Sylvia would still be alive’ and here’s what we’ve done to address it. And like the O’Higgins report, again, ended with a kind of a thing that happens a lot in Ireland where there are systematic problems where many things failed, therefore no one should be individually held responsible. And if that’s the response of the O’Higgins commission, then the book for that has to go to the top of the organisation. And again, I’m not saying Noirin O’Sullivan is anyway incompetent or had any hand, act or part in this but if the organisation is fundamentally rotten or, I won’t say corrupt, but is damaged then it needs to be changed from the top down.”

O’Rourke: “And what about the fact that there was an open, international competition for the Commissioner appointment, after Martin Callinan resigned or was retired, whatever way you want to phrase it, and she came through that competition?”

Roche Kelly: “Again, I don’t think it’s the fact that the competition existed, I would understand that wanted a challenging position would look at the garda, the job of the head of the garda, and say that might be a bridge too far for me, to reform an organisation like that. But if there is an open competition then have an external candidate so internal candidates cannot apply for it because it is a situation where you need an external candidate.”

Listen back in full here

Commissioner ‘not aware’ of Callinan’s car park meeting (Today FM)

Previously: Better Late Than Never

Screen Shot 2016-05-25 at 14.28.56Screen Shot 2016-05-25 at 14.32.50

From top: Garda Commissioner Nóirín O’Sullivan and Justice Minister Frances Fitzgerald at the launch of ‘joint agency response to crime’ strategy last November; Clare Daly

Independents 4 Change TD Clare Daly spoke to Audrey Carville on RTÉ’s News At One this lunchtime.

The interview came after Garda Commissioner Nóirín O’Sullivan released a statement at midday, saying, “I can confirm that An Garda Síochána’s legal team was not at any stage instructed to impugn the integrity of Sergeant Maurice McCabe or to make a case that he was acting maliciously.”

Grab a tay…

Audrey Carville: “Just to repeat, Nóirín O’Sullivan states, ‘I can confirm that An Garda Siochana’s legal team was not, at any stage, instructed to impugn the integrity of Sergeant Maurice McCabe or to make a case that he was acting maliciously. We’re joined now by Independent socialist TD Clare Daly. Clare Daly, thanks for joining us, do you believe the Commissioner when she says that?”

Clare Daly: “I think she’s saying very little. I think, if you read it carefully, her statement is very well put together. She’s selecting the word, ‘integrity’ which of course, we know from the leaked transcript, was exactly the expression used by her senior counsel Colm Smyth in November [2015] when he said the integrity bit was his words but she’s very silent on the allegations which were upheld that they were instructed to question the credibility and motivation of Maurice McCabe. And I think while she says and we can take it maybe, in some sense, they had to cross examine the evidence of everybody including Maurice McCabe, and I think everybody would accept that but this wasn’t about cross examining the evidence, this was about questioning his motivation, his credibility and having two senior officers prepared to give false testimony to back that up. And those allegations are still unanswered.”

Carville: “But isn’t she right though? In relation to the documents that have been leaked, she calls it the selected information purporting to relate to these proceedings out into the public domain, the transcripts of no more than three minutes of what happened at a Commission which ran for 34 10-hour days.”

Daly: “I think it’s interesting that she did choose to focus on that and says they’re selective but she doesn’t say they’re not true and they’re very comprehensive in their entirety of what they’re claiming and the claim hasn’t been denied anywhere – that Garda authorities instructed their legal team to basically go in and give false testimony to mislead the Commission as regards the credibility and motivation of Maurice McCabe…”

Carville: “How do you know that though? You can’t say that for certain.”

Daly: “I can say that for certain. And nobody disputed it any where, including the Garda Commissioner. To say that the evidence that was leaked is not valid or that it’s only part of the story – that’s not the case. It’s a very comprehensive transcript which stands up in its own ground and that added to other testimony that I’m absolutely aware of that the Garda legal team adopted an incredibly adversarial approach to Maurice McCabe where it was repeatedly stated at the Commission that he was, in effect, being put on trial – that treatment was not given to anybody else. I think it’s interesting that the Commissioner says she’s now asked the minister to investigate the matter of the two senior officers but the reality is is that this claim, with these two officers, was made over a year ago and it was only withdrawn last November – just before, on the eve if you like, of Noirin O’Sullivan herself giving evidence to the Commission. But if that information was out there, which it was, why hasn’t she, as the Garda Commissioner, already investigated that matter and why is she doing it now that it’s in the public domain because she’s aware of it.”

Carville: “Do you welcome though that it has gone to GSOC to investigate?”

Daly: “I think sadly GSOC are not equipped to deal with these matters adequately, it’s interesting that she talks again about dissent not being disloyalty for the current Garda whistleblowers whose cases are before GSOC. They haven’t been able to get a proper hearing and dissent is very much disloyalty under Noirin O’Sullivan’s watch as far as they’re concerned. So I don’t think GSOC are adequately equipped to deal with this. I’m glad somebody is investigating but to be honest with you, the real answers have to come from the Minister for Justice [Frances Fitzgerald] who, in legislation, ultimately is accountable for the behaviour of the Commissioner and I don’t think she’s accounted for her actions adequately. I think this is a longer statement basically saying what she did the last time and hiding behind confidentiality and legal points which have not been validated by any independent source again talking about Section 11 of the Commission of Investigation which is factually incorrect because that simply deals with evidence and the information here is not evidence, it’s a legal position being put forward.”

Carville: “But if there was a position, if there is an implicit admission in this statement that perhaps Sgt McCabe’s motivation and credibility were to be challenged, before the Commission, isn’t that fair enough because, as she says, the Gardai were being subjected to the most serious of allegations, from Maurice McCabe. So, in any court, isn’t the person making the allegations cross examined to the fullest?”

Daly:I’d be fully in favour of evidence being cross examined and indeed motivation can be but that’s entirely different to senior garda officers, in order to substantiate that, being prepared to give false evidence to the Commission. And that big, giant elephant is still in the room because that is a fact that has been undisputed and we need answers on that because that evidence was apparent to the Commissioner as late as a year ago and nothing has been done on it. Now we’re being told she is going to do something on it, or asked the minister, that’s not good enough for the head of An Garda Siochana. We’re talking about, in essence, perjury to a sworn commission. It’s highly serious.”

Carville: “But we don’t know exactly what those two senior Garda were prepared to do because it hasn’t made it in to the final report. And it’s not really dealt with in any of the leaked documents either.”

Daly: “And it is very much out there in the public domain, that the Garda Commissioner’s statement hasn’t answered it, and we need very clear answers on it, I mean I’d like to know, for example, why is Noirin O’Sullivan only acting on it now?”

Carville: “But it’s only a suspicion, Clare Daly, about what the two senior officers did. And she is now referring it to GSOC to be investigated.”

Daly:The people who were at the Commission are very clear on what the two officers said, very, very clear and there were quite a number of people at that Commission and I honestly believe the truth will out and I’m perfectly satisfied and safe, if you like, in saying that they were prepared to give evidence to mislead and only withdrew that when taped evidence was produced by Maurice McCabe to say what they had said was not true. That was the trigger that led to it being withdrawn. This man could have been ruined had be not had that tape recording.”

Carville: “Yeah, well, the matter is gone now to GSOC to investigate that and, as I say, it’s not fully clear from Mr O’Higgins’ commission that was indeed the case. Some people have said that it is time to draw a line under this. That nothing good can come from repeatedly going over this same situation in relation to Maurice McCabe, what do you say to that?”

Daly: “I think we can’t move forward until we honestly deal with what has happened. And I think we have repeatedly made the point that since the exit of Commissioner [Martin] Callinan and Minister [for Justice, Alan] Shatter, unfortunately, under the watch of Noirin O’Sullivan, and Frances Fitzgerald, the same very bad practice regarding the vilification of whistleblowers has continued and there’s nothing new in that and we know that from the treatment of Keith Harrison and Nick Keogh, current Garda whistleblowers, whose dissent has been very much treated as disloyalty. These people are out of work sick, they’ve been vilified, demonised, their life has been made an absolute hell – all on Noirin O’Sullivan’s watch…”

Later

Carville: “Thank you very much indeed, Independent socialist TD Clare Daly. And just to reiterate that no allegations have been proven against two senior gardai, that they deliberately misled the O’Higgins commission.”

Listen back in full here

Previously: Nóirín Speaks

Rollingnews

shatter[Justice Minister Alan Shatter in the Dail this morning]

A Cheann Comhairle

Could I start by again paying tribute to Martin Callinan on his retirement as Commissioner of An Garda Síochána. Martin Callinan had a long and distinguished service in An Garda Síochána. He dedicated his career to the fight against crime, and has a record of which he can justly be proud. I want to express my sincere thanks for his commitment and service to the State. In its statement yesterday, the Government indicated that information had come to light indicating that a system for the recording of phone calls to and from many Garda stations had been in place for many years before it was discontinued last November. The fact that such a system was in place, and for so long, is clearly a matter of serious concern, which the Government believes warrants the establishment of a Commission of Investigation.

Let me say at the outset that the circumstances surrounding the establishment of this system of recording, exactly when it started, the number of Garda stations involved, the extent to which recordings were retained, and their relevance to any Garda investigations are still unclear. One of the main functions of the Commission of Investigation will be to establish the facts relating to these and all other relevant issues. I recognise of course that Deputies will have many very reasonable questions on these and other aspects of this matter, but I am greatly constrained in what I can say. We need to establish the facts before we can draw any firm conclusions, and it would be wrong to engage in speculation in advance of that.
Let me, however, say what I know from a letter by the outgoing Garda Commissioner, Martin Callinan.

This letter was sent to my Department on 10 March, and was made under section 41 of the Garda Síochána Act 2005, which provides a mechanism for the submission of information by the Garda Commissioner. This letter was not furnished to me by my officials until approximately 12.40 pm yesterday and I did not have an opportunity to read and consider it until some time later. The letter started off by referring, by way of background, to a case in which civil proceedings are being taken by two persons against the Garda Síochána and the State for wrongful arrest and related matters. Can I say here that I am aware of speculation on the identity of these proceedings, but the House will understand that I cannot comment on proceedings currently before the courts.

The letter from the Garda Commissioner referred to recordings of telephone conversations into and out of a particular Garda station which had come to light as part of the process of discovering documents of relevance to the plaintiffs. That process is still under way, and again I must emphasise the constraints on commenting on a case which is currently being litigated in the courts.

I am advised that my Departmental officials were made aware of recordings of relevance to the specific civil proceedings previously mentioned on 28th February by the Garda Síochána and the Chief State’s Solicitor’s office arising from its involvement in the response to the civil proceedings. I am informed that what was at issue was the discovery of recordings in a specific Garda station, not a more general system of recording calls in Garda stations generally and that no reference to such general recording of calls was made at that time.

In this letter of 10th March, the Garda Commissioner went on to say that it had subsequently transpired that systems would appear to have been installed during the 1980s in Garda stations to allow for the recording of incoming and outgoing calls from designated extensions. The Commissioner explained that the rationale behind this was the recording of Garda radio traffic to and from control rooms, and 999 calls, and the gathering of evidence around calls made to Garda stations regarding bomb threats and other code messages. This practice had continued in some stations over the years, with the recordings being retained within each station, with the original recorders being replaced in the 1990s and again in 2008.

The letter states that the original recorders were replaced with dictaphone recorders during the 1990s (I do not presently know what specific years), and further replaced by what is referred to as NICE recorders, which I understand is a brand name, which were installed in 2008. The Commissioner explained that he had consulted the Attorney General’s office on the matter, and expected that consultation with the office of the Data Protection Commissioner would be necessary, as well as further advice from the office of the Attorney General. However, he made clear in the letter that he had directed that the routine recording of non-999 calls to Garda stations should cease, and he confirmed that all recordings except those made on dedicated 999 lines were fully stopped nationally on 27 November 2013.

In relation to the continued recording of 999 calls, which I think everyone would instinctively understand, the Commissioner, in his letter, explained that there was a legislative underpinning of such recording contained an Act of 2007. The Commissioner went on to say that he was awaiting written confirmation from each Divisional Officer that all audio recordings that had been stored at each Divisional Headquarters outside Dublin had been collected and were now stored securely at Garda Headquarters. The Commissioner noted that the total amount of tapes collected at that stage was 2,485.

The issue the Commissioner identified in the letter was the action he should now take in relation to these recordings, and he particularly referenced his role as Data Controller in respect of the recordings. He stated that he had consulted the Attorney General’s office on 11th November 2013 and established a Working Group to report to him on the issue and that he expected that consultation with the office of the Data Protection Commissioner would be necessary, as well as further advices from the Attorney General.
Whilst the Attorney General, in the context of the civil proceedings previously mentioned, was made aware of the existence of tapes, and the possible existence of other tapes, I am advised that she had no knowledge at that time of the circumstances surrounding the making of tapes, the legal background to their being made, the contents of such tapes, or the number of such tapes.

I understand that on the day the letter from the Commissioner was received there was a consultation held with the senior counsel representing the state in this case to discuss the issues arising, I also understand that on the day after the receipt of this letter of the 10th March in my Department, that is to say 11th March 2014, there was a follow-up meeting between the Garda Commissioner, the Department of Justice and the office of the Attorney General, and I am advised that the discussion covered the ongoing legal consultation in relation to the civil proceedings.

I also understand that the matters covered in the letter of 10th March were being considered by my Department in the context of the ongoing legal consultation in relation to the specific case in question and I am informed that, subsequently, on 19 and 20 March 2014, Garda Headquarters copied my Department with correspondence between the Garda Síochána and both the office of the Attorney General and the office of the Data Protection Commissioner.

As Members of the House may be aware, I flew to Mexico to undertake my duties in respect of Government Ministers St Patrick’s Day arrangements on 15th March and did not return until the 21st March. I was not briefed on this matter until approximately 6pm on Monday 24th March 2014 in the Department of Justice and, as previously stated, was first furnished with the letter from the Garda Commissioner of 10th March 2014 yesterday at approximately 12.40 pm.

Following the initial briefing by my Departmental officials, I met together with both the Taoiseach and the Attorney General on Monday evening to discuss these matters. I know that there are reports that I knew of the system of recording in Garda stations last year, but this is not the case. Reference has been made, for example, to a case investigated by GSOC of a member of the public who was assaulted by members of the Garda Síochána in Waterford. GSOC, I have since learnt, reported on this on 16th June of last year and did make reference in their report to the recording of phone calls in Waterford Garda Station.

However, this was not a report to me or my Department but a press release by GSOC and there was no indication or suggestion of any nationwide system of recording in Garda Stations. I am aware of various commentators referencing this short GSOC report in broadcast and print media since the Governments statement was published yesterday afternoon on this issue and questioning the truthfulness of the account given to date of these matters. Unfortunately, we live in a world where, regardless of the issue, some commentators and opposition Deputies, on first learning of an issue detailed by Government of which they were unaware, feel compelled to accuse those who make the issue known, and seek to address it, of telling untruths or of some incompetence. It is something of an industry, and with members opposite, a wearisome repetitive refrain followed by the usual dosage of contrived outrage.

The simple truth is GSOC did not furnish the report mentioned to me and I am advised that they did not furnish it to my Departmental officials nor bring it to the Departments attention. GSOC no doubt can confirm that. Because of the background to the GSOC Report, GSOC had no obligation under the 2005 Act to furnish it to me but did have a discretion to furnish it to any “person that the Commission considers has a sufficient interest in the matter”.

GSOC obviously did not regard this report as of sufficient importance to furnish it specifically to me or my Department, but issued it as a press release. It also seems, from the checking my officials have been able to undertake to date, that no Deputy in this House regarded the publication of sufficient importance to table a Dail question on it but I am open to correction on that. It may be the case that no member of this House read this report until yesterday or, if they did, they placed no importance on it. Insofar as it received any media coverage, it does not appear as if any member of the media regarded the report as of any major importance. Again, I am open to correction. This is understandable as the report gives no insight into the extent of recordings made by An Garda Siochana, nor did GSOC determine it an issue worthy of further investigation.

GSOC could, if they wished, have initiated a public interest investigation into the matter under Section 102 (4) of the Garda Siochana Act 2002. Had they done so, they would also have had to notify me of such investigation under Section 103 (1) (b) of the Act unless GSOC invoked Section 103 (2) but I cannot see how that subsection could be of relevance. In case I am misunderstood, I am making no criticisms of any nature of GSOC. I am merely setting out what is the position. These are the facts as I have been informed of them, but of course there are many questions which need to be answered. That is why the Government has decided that it is necessary to establish the facts and has announced that there will be a statutory inquiry.Continue reading →

callinan

In the best interests of An Garda Síochána and my family, I have decided to retire. I felt that recent developments were proving to be a distraction from the important work that is carried out by An Garda Síochána on a daily basis for the citizens of the State in an independent and impartial manner. Having joined An Garda Síochána in May of 1973, it has been a great honour and privilege to have spent nearly 41 years as a member of this tremendous organisation, serving the people of Ireland.

Those nearly 41 years, though at times challenging, have been enjoyable and fulfilling. This is due to the standard of people I have worked for, worked with, and led during this period of time. The work I carried out throughout my career could not have been done without the support of numerous men and women, and for this I would like to thank all who I have worked with during my service. It also could not have been achieved without the support of the many thousands of members of public who I have come in contact with and who I hope I have helped in some small way during my career.

Since becoming Commissioner in 2010 I have never failed to be impressed by the dedication of all serving members and civilian staff even when they faced significant professional and personal challenges. The last four years have seen major changes in An Garda Síochána, which were always done in the best interest of the community for whom we do our job. Although some of these changes have not always been easy, statistics from the CSO have shown that they have resulted in a reduction in crime throughout the country. This change in delivery of a policing service has, I hope, provided communities and individuals with a sense of safety and security in their daily lives.

I would like to thank the members of An Garda Síochána who I worked with during my time as Commissioner for their support and willingness to adapt for the benefit of the citizens of the State. I have great confidence that the delivery of an excellent policing service by excellent people will continue as it has done since An Garda Síochána’s foundation. I wish my successor, current members of An Garda Síochána, and those due to join later this year my continuing best wishes and wholehearted support.

Via Richard Chambers

Previously: Commish Hits The Fan

Laura Hutton/Photocall Ireland

John_Waters_CNA_World_Catholic_News_8_22_12bropFurther to Pantigate.

From Kevin Brophy, a solicitor acting for John Waters (above):

RTE said in their recent statement “I want to reassure you that RTE explored every option available to it, including right of reply. Legal advice was sought and all avenues were explored, including an offer to make a donation to a neutral charity”. They further went on to say that they took a particular course of action partly because of “the decision by the complainants not to accept RTE’s proposed remedies”.

This is a grossly misleading version of what actually happened.

This is what actually happened.

I was instructed by John Waters on January 11th to write to RTE seeking an apology and a retraction and the removal of certain defamatory comments from the internet broadcast of the Saturday Night Show. My instructions were very clear at that time. John Waters and the Iona Institute clients wanted an apology and a retraction and nothing else.

RTE proposed a right of reply which was like asking my clients to prove they are not homophobic. John Waters also made several attempts to deal with the matter himself, including having a lengthy telephone conversation with the producer of the Saturday Night Show. In the course of this conversation, he discovered that far from showing a willingness to vindicate his reputation, RTE had spent the previous two days conducting an internet trawl in a fruitless attempt to belatedly substantiate the allegation made by Mr O’Neill. They failed in these endeavours.

John Waters then proposed the precise wording of an apology and further proposed that a donation of €15,000 be made to the St. Vincent De Paul to mark the seriousness of the defamatory comments. This proposal did not come from RTE, it came from John Waters. RTE were not happy to broadcast the apology we had drafted and instead said they intended to go ahead with a totally unsatisfactory two sentence statement. Over the course of the following 7 days, an unsatisfactory wording was eventually agreed and was broadcast.

RTE’s response to the proposed donation to the St. Vincent De Paul was that they felt the figure should be €5,000. My very strong advice was for John Waters to issue proceedings against RTE as I did not believe they were taking the matter seriously.

It should also be noted that these negotiations were ongoing at a time when John Waters was being subjected to the most outrageous level of online abuse and adverse commentary.

Eventually RTE offered €40,000 and this was accepted. I did not recommend the figure as I felt it was too low. The bottom line here is that if RTE had accepted John Water’s original proposal, this case would have settled at a fraction of the final cost to RTE.

I have acted for John Waters for many years. In previous defamation actions he has requested that settlements be passed to charity. John Waters agreed to this final settlement and apology in the hope of putting an end to the matter and in deference to the members of the Iona Institute, who had also been defamed. This is not a case of John Waters trying to silence the gay lobby or prevent freedom of speech. He was defamed. He continues to be defamed. If RTE had acted appropriately and sensibly on day one, this current storm would never have arisen.

Kevin Brophy Brophy Solicitors

Thanks Vincent Murphy

From February 5:

“RTÉ’s apology to John Waters and members of the Iona Institute following the receipt of six legal complaints and you will, no doubt, have seen the ongoing debate on this subject.
I want to reassure you that RTÉ explored every option available to it, including right of reply. Legal advice was sought and all avenues were explored, including an offer to make a donation to a neutral charity.
“However, based on the facts of what was broadcast, and having regard for broadcasting compliance issues, the seriousness of the legal complaints, and the decision by the complainants not to accept RTÉ’s proposed remedies, we decided that a settlement was the most prudent course of action. Senior counsel was consulted and confirmed that the legal position was far from clear.
“As a dual-funded public body, RTÉ should not knowingly progress to defend an action when it is advised, internally and externally, that such a defence is unlikely to succeed before a jury.”

Glen Killane, RTE managing director Television in an email to staff on February 5.

Meanwhile…

 

90302457(Dr Rhona Mahony with James Reilly, Minister for Health).

Think you’re busy?

RTÉ reports:

“National Maternity Hospital Master Dr Rhona Mahony [above] has said her remuneration is strictly in line with the contract she has with the hospital and is in compliance with public service pay requirements. In a statement, Dr Mahony said the additional €45,000 paid to her did not come from the health service or any other source, including fundraising and charitable donations.

“She said it was from professional fees from private patients attending the National Maternity Hospital. Dr Mahony said her contract allows her to provide clinical care to private patients, as is the case with all consultants in the Irish health service who have the same consultant contract as she does. She said she had been I “personally vilified over the last few days.” “This has been utterly unwarranted,” the statement concludes.”

Utterly.

Mahony: No extra remuneration from health service (RTÉ)

Laura Hutton/Photocall Ireland