A Free Man?


Former Garda Press Officer Supt Dave Taylor (above) and Michael McDowell (top), senior counsel for Sgt Maurice McCabe, at Dublin Castle during the Disclosures Tribunal

Last Thursday and Friday, the Disclosures Tribunal heard the final submissions from the various legal parties in which they summed up their client/clients’ case.

The tribunal, overseen by Supreme Court judge Peter Charleton, examined claims made by the former head of the Garda Press Office Supt Taylor that he was instructed by former Garda Commissioner Martin Callinan, with the knowledge of Deputy Commissioner Noirin O’Sullivan, to negatively brief journalists about Garda whistleblower Sgt Maurice McCabe.

He claimed that, at some point in the middle of 2013, he was instructed to convey to journalists that Sgt McCabe – who was raising concerns about poor policing in Cavan/Monaghan district at this time – was driven by maliciousness and motivated by revenge due to an allegation of sexual assault made against him in 2006.

This was the allegation made by a woman referred to as Ms D – the daughter of a former Garda colleague of Sgt McCabe’s – 11 months after the colleague (Mr D) was sanctioned after Sgt McCabe made a complaint on foot of him attending the scene of a suicide after drinking alcohol.

In April 2007, the DPP found Ms D’s allegation had no foundation.

Supt Taylor alleges that – as the penalty point controversy began to simmer in 2013/2014 – he was instructed to tell journalists about this allegation and to tell them that the DPP ruled against a prosecution, but that he was to convey that it was still the “root cause” of Sgt McCabe’s complaints about poor practices within An Garda Síochána.

Four journalists contacted the D family in early 2014 – Debbie McCann, of the Irish Mail on Sunday, Eavan Murray, of the Irish Sun, Paul Williams, of the Irish Independent, and Michael O’Toole, of the Irish Daily Star, via Facebook to Mr D – according to Mr D.

Mr O’Toole was never asked about this Facebook contact when he gave evidence.

[The only journalist to write about Ms D’s allegation against Sgt McCabe in 2014 was Mr Williams – in April and May 2014.]

The tribunal’s genesis was the submission of two protected disclosures in September 2016 by Sgt McCabe and Supt Taylor – following a meeting they had in Supt Taylor’s home.

When they met, Supt Taylor had just been through a very difficult family trauma and was very upset.

Supt Taylor’s wife Michelle Taylor told the tribunal what this family trauma was when she gave evidence but the judge immediately struck it from the record – presumably to protect those involved.

Sgt McCabe made his protected disclosure – based on what Supt Taylor told him – several days before Supt Taylor.

The main difference between Sgt McCabe and Supt Taylor’s accounts of their discussion, is that Sgt McCabe claims Supt Taylor told him that he sent “hundreds” of texts to journalists and other senior gardai as part of his alleged smear campaign.

Sgt McCabe says he returned to Supt Taylor the day after initially meeting with Supt Taylor, in order to double-check the matter of texts, and Supt Taylor said “thousands” of texts could have been sent.

Other witnesses – Fianna Fail TD John McGuinness, Independents 4 Change TD Clare Daly and Irish Examiner journalist Mick Clifford – have also told the tribunal that, at around the time of making his protected disclosure, Supt Taylor also led them to believe that texts were used as part of the alleged smear campaign.

Ms Daly spoke about this on radio in October 2014, while Mr Clifford wrote about this in his book The Maurice McCabe Story, A Force for Justice – after sending Supt Taylor the chapter containing this detail for the purpose of fact checking in May 2017 – and Supt Taylor never corrected either Ms Daly or Mr Clifford.

Furthermore, they told the tribunal they were led to believe that evidence of these texts were on phones seized as part of a criminal investigation into him (more on this below).

But Supt Taylor, when he gave evidence to the tribunal, was adamant that when he discussed the matter of texts with Sgt McCabe, he was referring to texts to Mr Callinan and Ms O’Sullivan concerning media updates.

[The tribunal heard that the Garda Press Office monitors the printed press daily while the tribunal saw radio transcripts concerning matters related to Ms O’Sullivan were emailed to Ms O’Sullivan from the Communications Clinic – which, the tribunal heard, is paid to work with the Garda Press Office]

At the time of their meeting, Supt Taylor was under criminal investigation for leaking material to the press.

This investigation first started out as an investigation into the leaking of details concerning Roma children in October 2013 – following on from a report by the Children’s Ombudsman Emily Logan into the matter.

Chief Supt Francis Clerkin was appointed by Assistant Commissioner John Twomey to carry out this investigation in July 2014 – a month after Supt Taylor was removed from the Garda Press Office and transferred to the Traffic Department, following the resignation of former Garda Commissioner Martin Callinan in March 2014.

Chief Supt Clerkin appointed Det Supt Jim McGowan – the husband of the then Garda Commissioner Noirin O’Sullivan – Insp Dave Gallagher, Sgt Thelma Waters, Sgt Brian Kavanagh and Garda Ross Rowan to assist in this investigation.

Chief Supt Clerkin said the decision to appoint these gardai was entirely his and that Ms O’Sullivan had no part in it.

In the midst of this investigation, during 2014 and 2015, and after seeing extensive contacts Supt Taylor had with journalists after he was moved out of the Garda Press Office in June 2014, the tribunal was told the investigation somewhat morphed into an investigation into Supt Taylor, during which phones were seized from Supt Taylor.

[It should be noted that the tribunal saw a text sent from Ms O’Sullivan to Terry Prone, of the Communications Clinic, in October 2016 – after the protected disclosures were submitted – in which she told Ms Prone: “I took up on 26th March 2014 and moved him [Supt Taylor] on the first available opportunity, which I believe was 9th June 2014.”]

Supt Taylor was found to have had almost 11,000 contacts with journalists between September 2014 and December 2014 alone – 2,800 of which were with Irish Sun journalist Eavan Murray alone.

It was said on a number of occasions in the tribunal that Supt Taylor was running his own Garda Press Office despite no longer being a part of it.

[Notwithstanding that, it should be noted anyone could pick up any newspaper on any given day of the week and find Garda leaks are a complete norm in Irish journalism]

Supt Taylor was arrested and suspended in May 2015.

Chief Supt Clerkin told the tribunal that after he was released from custody, Chief Supt Clerkin discussed Supt Taylor’s suspension with Assistant Commissioner John Twomey and, subsequent to that, Supt Taylor was “suspended on a three-monthly period from Garda Headquarters at Phoenix Park, a decision made by an assistant commissioner”.

Either way, in August 2015, Chief Supt Francis Clerkin – after investigating Supt Taylor – recommended that he be prosecuted for disclosing information to numerous journalists between October 21, 2013 and February 19, 2015, contrary to Section 62(2) of the Garda Síochána Act 2005:

Section 62 is:

“A person who is or was a member of the Garda Síochána or of its civilian staff or who is or was engaged under contract or other engagement to work with or for the Garda Síochána, shall not disclose, in or outside the State, any information obtained in the course of carrying out duties of that person’s office, employment, contract or other arrangement if the person knows the disclosure of that information is likely to have a harmful effect.”

Section 62 (2) is:

For the purpose of this section (above), the disclosure of information referred to in subsection

(1) does not have a harmful effect unless it—

(a) facilitates the commission of an offence,

(b) prejudices the safekeeping of a person in legal custody,

(c) impedes the prevention, detection or investigation of an offence,

(d) impedes the apprehension or prosecution of a suspected offender,

(e) prejudices the security of any system of communication of the Garda Síochána,

(f) results in the identification of a person—

(i) who is a witness in a criminal proceeding or who has given information in confidence to a member of the Garda Síochána, and

(ii) whose identity is not at the time of the disclosure a matter of public knowledge,

(g) results in the publication of information that—

(i) relates to a person who is a witness to or a victim of an offence, and

(ii) is of such a nature that its publication would be likely to discourage the person to whom the information relates or any other person from giving evidence or reporting an offence,

(h) results in the publication of personal information and constitutes an unwarranted and serious infringement of a person’s right to privacy,

(i) reveals information provided in confidence by another state, an international organisation, another police service or an intelligence service, or

(j) affects adversely the international relations or interests abroad of the State, including those with Northern Ireland.

During this investigation, in early 2016 – and crucially before Supt Taylor spoke to Sgt McCabe in September 2016 – Supt Taylor made an application to the High Court to have the investigation into him stopped.

He claimed, in a sworn affidavit, that he was arrested only for the purpose of embarrassing and inflicting pain on him and holding him up to ridicule and contempt. He also claimed that, during his detention, investigators were tactless, oppressive, heavy handed, and unnecessarily autocratic.

His senior counsel Breiffne Gordon even told the court there was “a certain element of skullduggery taking place”.

On February 17, 2016, the DPP directed there be no prosecution.

A letter from the directing officer in the office of the DPP said:

“The problems are two-fold. In most cases it is not possible to prove that information was disclosed to the press by the suspect.

“Even in cases where there is an electronic trail of information being disclosed, it is impossible to establish the harm requirement of Section 62 of the Garda Síochána Act 2005.

“While highly suspicious, I do not think that it is possible to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the suspect disclosed confidential information. Therefore, I direct no prosecution.”

The gardai then wrote back to the DPP on February 22, 2016, and asked if the DPP would reconsider a prosecution against Supt Taylor in relation to disclosing personal data without the prior authority of the Data Controller.

The tribunal heard this letter of response to the DPP – requesting a prosecution under over personal data – was signed and submitted by Noirin O’Sullivan’s husband Det Supt McGowan as Chief Supt Clerkin was on holiday at that time.

Fast forward a year later to February 8, 2017 and Labour leader Brendan Howlin got up in the Dail during Leaders’ Questions, and told the Oireachtas:

“This morning a journalist contacted me and told me they had direct knowledge of calls made by the Garda Commissioner to journalists during 2013 and 2014 in the course of which the Commissioner made very serious allegations of sexual crimes having been committed by Sergeant Maurice McCabe. “

Mr Howlin was referring to what Irish Mail on Sunday journalist Alison O’Reilly told him her colleague Debbie McCann told her.

Mr Howlin did later clarify that he did not have “direct evidence” – he only knew what Ms O’Reilly told him and that Ms O’Reilly never told him she had “direct knowledge”.

He also clarified that he was mistaken when he said ‘journalists’ (plural).

[The tribunal has been told there are no phone records to show Ms McCann and Ms O’Sullivan were in phone contact during the relevant period. Ms O’Reilly claims that Ms McCann told her that she had Ms O’Sullivan’s phone number in 2014]

It should also be noted that in the same Dáil contribution, Mr Howlin specifically said:

“I do not know whether the charges that have been made against the Garda Commissioner are true or not.”

Seven days later, on February 13, 2017, the DPP ruled against prosecuting Supt Taylor for a second time.

In a letter from the directing officer in the office of the DPP to Chief Supt Clerkin, he was told:

“I refer to the above matter and, in particular, to my direction of the 17th February 2016 wherein the question of a prosecution for offences contrary to Section 62 of the Garda Síochána Act 2005 was already considered.

“The question of a prosecution for breaches of the Data Protection Act 1988, as amended, has been considered.

“The advices of senior counsel were sought and I enclose herewith opinion from (redacted) in relation to the matter.

“The Director agrees with the advices of counsel, and accordingly, for the reasons set out in counsel’s advices, there should be no prosecution.”

Supt Taylor went back to work in the Traffic Department in Dublin Castle the following day, February 14, 2017.

The tribunal heard that, during the criminal investigation, Supt Taylor replied ‘no comment’ over Garda interviews amounting to 18 hours.

Yet, within minutes on his first day of giving evidence to the tribunal, Supt Taylor told Judge Charleton that he wasn’t contesting the claim that he did make all of the communications to journalists as outlined in the Clerkin report.

He later told the judge:

“I fully accept that I accept my culpability and I regret that immensely.”

He also, when giving evidence, fully accepted the bona fides of the Clerkin investigation, accepted Ms O’Sullivan had nothing to do with it and said there was nothing on his seized phones worth destroying in terms of the alleged smear campaign against Sgt McCabe – not least of all because the phone which was relevant to the period of the alleged smear campaign (mid-2013 to March/April 2014) was not seized.

Prior to Supt Taylor giving evidence, Chief Supt Clerkin told the tribunal that, as part of his criminal investigation into Supt Taylor, three of his phones were seized – on December 18, 2014, on Februrary 19, 2015 and May 2015.

Chief Supt Clerkin told the tribunal when he seized Supt Taylor’s phone on December 18, 2014, he sealed it and gave it to Det Supt McGowan with a view to examining it later.

Chief Supt Clerkin said the investigating team had hoped to see texts going back to October 2013 – when Supt Taylor was in the Garda Press Office and when the incident with the Roma children occurred – but no such information was on the phone as it had only been issued to Supt Taylor in September 2014 and Supt Taylor had taken the old 2013/3014 phone away with him at that time (in September 2014).

Essentially, Supt Taylor’s 2013/2014 phone is one of the 12 phones belong to Supt Taylor, Mr Callinan and Ms O’Sullivan which the tribunal never recovered.

And it was phones pertaining to a later period of time than when he was in the Garda Press Office which were seized from Supt Taylor and Supt Taylor accepted this when he gave evidence.

As for Supt Taylor’s previous claim that texts from the period relevant to the tribunal (July 2012 to June 2014) had been put to him during the Clerkin investigation – and should, he had previously argued, therefore be made available to the tribunal – Supt Taylor’s counsel told the tribunal that Supt Taylor had been mistaken and that it was billing records from that time which were put to him, not texts.

In addition, between the time of his protected disclosure in September 2016 and his evidence to the tribunal, disciplinary proceedings against Supt Taylor were also dropped.

Chief Supt Clerkin said he was told in February of this year [2018] by the Assistant Commissioner for Dublin [Pat Leahy] that he was to discontinue all discipline matters.

He also added that he suspects a second, separate disciplinary investigation – carried out by another chief superintendent – “met with [a] similar fate” but he couldn’t be sure.

On Friday, June 22, Judge Charleton specifically asked what happened to the disciplinary proceedings against Supt Taylor.

When Shane Murphy SC, for An Garda Siochana, made his submission last week, he answered this question by saying the following:

“In our view, Chairman, having regard to the terms of reference, we respectfully say it’s not necessary for the Tribunal to determine this question, and our clients would have a concern that anything that might be said as to why disciplinary proceedings have been discontinued may impact or compromise any steps An Garda Síochána wish to take in relation to the matter in the future. So I would prefer not to elaborate on that issue at this time, with the permission of the Chair.”

Following on from that…

At the outset of his submission Michael McDowell SC, for Sgt Maurice McCabe, pointed out two letters detailing the discontinuing of the disciplinary proceedings in respect of the Roma children and the other matters against Supt Taylor were both dated January 12, 2017.

Mr McDowell wondered if this was a misprint – because the tribunal was told the disciplinary proceedings were dropped in February 2018.

Diarmaid McGuinness SC, for the tribunal, pointed out that the date under the signature on one of the letters said ‘February 2018’.

Mr McDowell said it was important discrepancy and he recalled the evidence of former Garda Commissioner Noirin O’Sullivan when she asked why the disciplinary proceedings were dropped – and, Mr McDowell said, she said “it happened on somebody else’s watch and she couldn’t assist you [Judge Charleton] with it”.

Mr McDowell also raised questions as to why Supt Taylor’s evidence to the tribunal was “so milk and watery in so many respects”.

[Supt Taylor couldn’t recall any details – time or place – of any alleged briefing]

Mr McDowell also recounted how Supt Taylor backtracked on certain claims, as mentioned above, but also that when one journalist Cathal McMahon, formerly of the Irish Daily Mirror, finally told the tribunal that Supt Taylor confirmed the Ms D allegation to him, Supt Taylor curiously didn’t agree with everything Mr McMahon said – even though he was the only journalist to corroborate Supt Taylor’s claim.

It’s worth noting that the tribunal also heard that when he was interviewed by the tribunal’s investigators, Supt Taylor said he told journalists about the Ms D allegation to the effect there was ‘no smoke without fire’.

But when he gave evidence to the tribunal, he also backtracked on this claim.

In addition, Supt Taylor only actually attended the tribunal a handful of days – in contrast to Sgt McCabe who attended every single day.

Mr McDowell said:

“Cathal McMahon gave evidence here that he went to Superintendent Taylor to ask him to confirm the details of a story he had heard from a non-Garda source. And he says two things happened: Superintendent Taylor confirmed the fact that there had been an investigation, etcetera, etcetera, and directed him — sorry, pointed him in the direction of Cavan to look at the matter further.

“Superintendent Taylor, in his statements to this Tribunal’s investigators, told the investigators that he encouraged Ms [Debbie] McCann [of the Irish Mail on Sunday] and Ms [Eavan] Murray [of the Irish Sun] to go — to follow up the matter by going to Cavan to the Ds. That is negative briefing and that is participating in a story which is — participating in the dissemination of a story in circumstances which are wholly inappropriate.

“So you have four journalists – [Paul] Williams [of the Irish Independent], Murray, McCann and McMahon – two of whom admit that they were effectively negatively briefed, in the sense that they were given suggestions to go there or to — given a false account of the DPP’s direction in the matter and misled as to the nature of the DPP’s direction on the one hand, and two of whom have pleaded privilege in respect of these matters before you, Ms McCann and Ms Murray.

They have said that they were never negatively briefed, but they have invoked privilege as to whether they ever had a conversation with Superintendent Taylor. Now, when I made a submission to you, Chairman, about what implications can be drawn from a wrongful invocation of privilege, I did make the point, and I was careful to do so, that it depended on the circumstances that you could draw such inference as it was appropriate in the circumstance…”

“…in respect of Ms. Murray and Ms. McCann, whether or not they were right or wrong legally, and I say they were utterly wrong in the circumstances and in view of the waivers, to refuse to confirm to the Tribunal what had been said to them on or off the record, or off the record in particular, by Superintendent Taylor, whether or not they were legally entitled to do that, having regard to Article 10 of the ECHR, in the circumstance that they did travel to the D household, that they did make an attempt to interview Ms. D, and that they had, on Superintendent Taylor’s account given to the Tribunal’s investigators, discussions with them in which he would have encouraged them to follow up on the matter with the D family, that the inference that you should draw, in my respectful submission, is that they were so encouraged and that they were directed towards the D family in precisely the same way as Cathal McMahon was, and that it is quite likely in the circumstances that they were given the same background information in relation to the whole question of the D allegation, its investigation and the like, as Paul Williams claims he was given just for the asking by Superintendent Taylor.

“So those four journalists, Judge, are there. And I do agree with a number of the submissions that have been made here, but it is strange indeed that those four journalists are clear examples where there was a briefing, in my respectful submission, but that there were a number of other people in respect of whom there was no evidence that they were so briefed.

“And then on the same day as Cathal McMahon gives his evidence, you have the evidence of his editor, John Kierans, and he tells you that he was satisfied in early 2014 that this story was being hawked around the newsrooms of Dublin by Sergeant McCabe — sorry, by Superintendent Taylor.

“And if you wanted to find that, Judge, it’s page 203 to 206 on Day 94, it’s all set out there. So I’m asking the Tribunal, before it comes to the view that nothing Superintendent Taylor said could be true, not to leap into a simple binary choice of saying he’s either credible or he’s incredible. Clearly in respect of a number of issues he’s not credible.

“Clearly in respect of a number of issues he’s a witness whose evidence must be taken with circumspection. But those four instances that I referred the Tribunal to just now are clear instances of where the Press Officer of An Garda Síochána appears to have engaged in briefing of journalists, and it would be entirely reasonable to believe that this was designed to damage Sergeant McCabe in the circumstances.

“…I made a submission to you earlier, and I’m not going to repeat it at length, on an earlier occasion, that the Tribunal should look very clearly at the formulaic denial of negative briefing by a number of journalists here.

In respect of two of them at least [RTE’s] Paul Reynolds and Debbie McCann [of the Irish Mail on Sunday], when I inquired of them what they meant by ‘negative briefing’, under cross-examination they accepted that being told the truth about Sergeant McCabe, i.e. receiving detraction about him, was not negative briefing, but that negative briefing involved effectively some element of calumny, as long as they were being told the truth it wasn’t negative briefing.

“And as I submitted to you earlier, Chairman, ‘negative briefing’ is not a term of art, but it is a phrase which has clearly been used on a number of occasions by different witnesses here to mean quite different things, and I will put it no further than that.

“…I would have to say, Judge, that the attitude exhibited in the witness box here by Superintendent Taylor seems to have had about it an acquiescence and a willingness not to fight his corner but to rely on entirely formulaic statements of evidence in circumstances that must attract some degree of suspicion.

“And I instance the case of Cathal McMahon, Judge. He came in here and said I rang him up, I asked him for confirmation of the D allegation and the investigation, and he directed me or encouraged me to go up to Cavan and find out for myself.

“Now that should have suited his case, but he put it to the witness, through his counsel, that that was untrue, for some strange reason, and that all he had ever done was engage in this mantra of saying that he was motivated by revenge, blah-blah-blah, the usual thing.

“And there seems to be something very, very strange indeed about — and you will see that interaction, Mr. Ferry [counsel for Supt Taylor] was putting the questions, I have no doubt on close instructions from his client, putting questions to Mr McMahon suggesting that his testimony here was false, when in fact it tended to corroborate the underlying truth of what Superintendent Taylor had disclosed in his protected disclosure, and that was that he was engaged in the business of subverting Sergeant McCabe on the instructions of and with the acquiescence of the Commissioner.

“…In relation to Sergeant McCabe’s status as the maker of a protected disclosure, I think Mr [Shane] Murphy [SC for An Garda Siochana] has fairly conceded that Sergeant McCabe has acknowledged that in recounting what he was told by Superintendent Taylor that he was doing his best to be truthful and to be accurate in what he has said.

“And I think that it has been, it is certainly the case here that his version of what he was told, particularly in relation to the use of texts, has been corroborated, as the tribunal well
knows, by a number of things; two members of the Dáil [Mick Wallace and Clare Daly] who got the same impression from Superintendent Taylor and most importantly in terms of certainty is that what he said was put by Superintendent Taylor, by Michael Clifford [of the Irish Examiner] and that he was asked to check the correctness of the facts as stated and he failed to demure in any way from the version given by Sergeant McCabe and the version given to the two Dáil deputies.

“There are other aspects of it, Judge, I just want to remind the Tribunal there are other aspects which there are significant matters, one of which was Sergeant McCabe was told about the Oisin file, that is corroborated; another of which is that there was a file on him in Crime and Security, that has been established to be true – Crime and Security were involved in sending people to check out the infamous uncle Bernie McCabe’s groundless allegations against Sergeant McCabe; there is also the issue that he was, he gave evidence that the Taylors had said to him that they had been offered a way out.

“And Chairman, it is of significance that he was offered this way out by way of resignation.

“Sergeant McCabe duly recorded that in his protected disclosure. Interestingly, and strangely, Mrs Taylor confirmed that that offer had been made through lawyers by the relevant officer, senior officer of An Garda Síochána, but for some reason you find that Superintendent Taylor denied that.

“And that’s on day 76, Judge. Mrs Taylor agrees that the Commissioner, Deputy Commissioner Twomey had through lawyers made this offer to Superintendent Taylor, but strangely Superintendent Taylor himself denied this and contradicted Sergeant McCabe.

“Why is that Judge?

“And why is it that he has come here dissembling as to his dealings with An Garda Síochána? I raise this significant issue and I ask the tribunal to consider it: Has he come here as an entirely free man or has his reinstatement put him under an obligation to dilute his evidence and is it a good explanation as to why he was so milk and watery in so many respects?

“…I am just making the point that it is strange indeed that he comes to this tribunal and contradicts both his wife and Sergeant McCabe about Deputy Commissioner Twomey acting as kind of a peacemaker and offering him a way out of his dilemma by way of resignation, and at the same time we then hear later that we get this letter indicating that the disciplinary proceedings had been dropped against him.

“…There is one extraordinary feature though too, Judge. I mean, if you look at [director of communications] Mr [Andrew] McLindon’s evidence and former Commissioner [Noirin] O’Sullivan’s evidence, there was a remarkable unwillingness to explain to you at first hand, from both of them, why Superintendent Taylor was shifted in the first place. You will recall you had to stop former Commissioner O’Sullivan from speaking PR speak about his great promotional opportunities and his new talents down in the traffic department, which was manifestly plámás and evidence which was designed to conceal what really happened.

“And that was, as it emerged from a text [to Terry Prone] that Commissioner O’Sullivan was far from interested in developing his career but determined to get him out of the Press Office at the earliest available opportunity.

“I go back to the point that I made earlier: Why was his suspension lifted? Why was his suspicion lifted if he was so obviously leaking and behaving in a manner which would get any rank and file member of An Garda Síochána, if they were caught doing it, the door almost immediately?

“They would probably be lucky even to have an inquiry if the facts were proven against them to
that extent, they’d be shown the door for gross misbehaviour and yet this man is back in the force.”


Conor Dignam, for An Garda Siochana – in response to Mr McDowell – moved to address his point about Supt Taylor’s disciplinary investigation.

But he was interrupted by Judge Charleton, who laughed when he said:

“Yes, it may help you to know that I don’t think there is anything from which I can say, for instance, that seems to be the inference that was kind of floated out there, that the Gardaí did some kind of a deal with Superintendent Taylor. It’s just not there. As to whether you’re wise in relation to how you run your disciplinary process, well, that is another matter…”

Previously: Dave Taylor’s Disclosures


Sponsored Link

8 thoughts on “A Free Man?

  1. anne

    How much is this costing us?

    Clients summary for Noirin O’Sullivan/ Martin Callinan “eh, they know noooothing”..

    Journalists – ” that’s confidential soz”

    Everyone else: “can’t remember or “the other fella is lying”

    McCabe would have been better off being compensated with the costs of this.

    Disgusting carry on from Callinhan, continued by O Sullivan

    1. Cu Cullan

      And a judge who says that’s ok. Nothing to see here move along..!!!!!
      Thank you BS for sticking with this and opening a door into a world RTÉ and their friends have and will never show us.

  2. Simon

    Can someone please answer this if possible: Is it not the case that mobile phone service providers retain the text content and metadata (location data, time sent etc.) of each text message on their servers for a period of 5 years, by law?

    Surely all the lost, ffs, phones are moot.

    This smacks of the situation earlier in the proceedings where the court was told of extensive “trawling” thorough emails, with heavy implications of a time-consuming procedure.

    It consisted of entering search terms in a search query, same as looking for an email from uncle barney in your own stuffed inbox..

Comments are closed.

Sponsored Link