Category Archives: Misc

Screen Shot 2016-05-18 at 11.35.48

Last night in the Dáil, during the Adjournment Debate, Independents 4 Change TDs Clare Daly and Mick Wallace addressed Tánaiste and Justice Minister Frances Fitzgerald.

They were speaking about Garda Commissioner Nóirín O’Sullivan’s representation at the O’Higgins Commission of Investigation in respect of Sgt Maurice McCabe.

Ms Daly and Mr Wallace spoke in the Dáil before transcripts of Ms O’Sullivan’s legal counsel Colm Smyth SC speaking before Judge O’Higgins were revealed on RTÉ’s Prime Time last night.

The transcripts revealed that Mr Smyth initially told Mr O’Higgins: “My instructions are to challenge the integrity of Sgt McCabe and his motivation.”

The two men then had the following exchange:

O’Higgins: “…An attack on somebody’s credibility and his motivation or integrity is something that really doesn’t form part of this inquiry. It would be necessary for you to go further and say that the complaints and the actions of Sgt McCabe were motivated by… that is motivation was dishonest or wrong…In other words that he made these allegations not in good faith but because he was motivated by malice, by some such motive and that impinges on his integrity. If those are your instructions from the Commissioner, so be it.”

Smyth: “So be it. That is the position judge.”

O’Higgins: “Those are your…”

Smyth: “Yes. As the evidence will demonstrate judge…[later] this isn’t something I’m pulling out of the sky, judge, I mean I can only act on instructions.”

Later, in November – after Sgt McCabe produced a transcript of his meeting in Mullingar with two gardaí – Mr Smyth told Justice O’Higgins that, in fact, he, on behalf of Ms O’Sullivan, was not challenging Sgt McCabe’s integrity but just his credibility and motivation.

Mr Smyth said he erred earlier when he said ‘integrity’.

Further to this…

Clare Daly: “I listened to the Tánaiste during Leaders’ Questions with a mixture of disbelief and awe. Does she really believe that the questions about the conduct of the Garda Commissioner are going to go away? Does she really believe that, by saying that the Commissioner made it clear that she supported Maurice McCabe, it is the end of the matter?”

“What the Commissioner’s statement actually said was that she had never regarded Maurice McCabe as malicious. Fair play to her, that is very nice, but it is not the issue at hand. The issue in front of the public is that the Garda Commissioner’s legal team, allegedly on her instruction, attempted to mislead the commission deliberately by entering false information in order to challenge the motivation and credibility of Maurice McCabe.”

“The fact that legal counsel has stated that the attempt to challenge his integrity was its idea and not the Commissioner’s does not make any difference. It is reminiscent of the former Minister, Alan Shatter, throwing Oliver Connolly under the bus.”

“The commission was told that two senior gardaí would give direct evidence to the effect that Maurice McCabe was present at a meeting and stated that he operated under malice. It was only when irrefutable evidence was presented showing it to be false that the allegation was withdrawn.”

“If the Tánaiste does not have a problem with this, we are in even bigger trouble than I believed. There is an immediate crisis of trust and confidence in the Commissioner. Public statements uttered by her in support of whistleblowers have been contradicted by her actions behind the scenes.”

“The Tánaiste should not be surprised about that because we are not. Eighteen times since the Tánaiste became Minister, Deputy Wallace and I have tabled the issue of Commissioner O’Sullivan’s treatment of the whistleblowers Mr. Keith Harrison and Mr. Nick Kehoe.”

“The Tánaiste has done nothing. Will she launch a full investigation into the Commissioner’s actions in accordance with the Garda Síochána (Policing Authority and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, under which she can investigate and remove the Commissioner for actions that discredit her office?”

“Will she commission the Garda Síochána Ombudsman Office, GSOC, to launch an investigation? If not, why not?

I am reminded of a memorable contribution by Deputy Wallace in the Dáil when he told the former Minister that it was time for the latter to go and to take the then Commissioner with him. It is obvious that it is time for the current Commissioner to go. Unless the Tánaiste acts, the Commissioner will take her with her.”

Mick Wallace: “If Maurice McCabe had not made a recording, the judge would have been compelled to believe the two officers and Maurice McCabe would have been destroyed. This development was not even mentioned in the O’Higgins report. Surely, that undermines the report’s integrity.”

“We still do not know whether Ms Nóirín O’Sullivan’s legal team, under her direction, handed documents to the commission that contained a false statement. That is supposedly a criminal offence. This is a serious matter.”

“I find it difficult to believe that, when there is so much discussion about doing things differently in all aspects of politics, Fianna Fáil does not want to know about this situation. It just wants the issue to go away as well. This is shocking.”

“What the Commissioner says in public is different to what is happening on the ground. Keith Harrison and Nick Kehoe have been treated abysmally for two years. Both are out sick now. One gets less than €300 per week and the other gets nothing. Every effort has been made to hound them out of their jobs.”

“It is two years since Mr. Harrison tried to get a proper hearing and he has only had one proper meeting with GSOC. GSOC requested Mr. Kehoe’s file after a poor internal Garda investigation. The Garda was given 30 days to deliver it but still has not done so.”

“Ms Nóirín O’Sullivan asserts that dissent is not disloyalty, but that is not true. Now it is being claimed that the question of integrity was not raised and the senior counsel is being thrown under the bus or is taking one for the team.”

“The Commissioner is not even rowing back on how she questioned Maurice McCabe’s motivation. She has not rowed back on the fact that she was questioning his character. Who in God’s name would be a whistleblower? She is not fit to be the Commissioner.”

“Nothing has changed. It is as it was. We will not improve or change how we do policing in Ireland until we change the hierarchy and start from scratch.”

Transcript via Oireachtas.ie

Screen Shot 2016-05-18 at 10.21.33 Screen Shot 2016-05-18 at 10.22.22

From top: Tánaiste and Justice Minister Frances Fitzgerald and RTÉ’s Miriam O’Callaghan; Ms Fitzgerald

Like a boss.

Last night, Tánaiste and Justice Minister Frances Fitzgerald appeared on RTÉ’s Prime Time.

Presenter Miriam O’Callaghan repeatedly asked Ms Fitzgerald was she either surprised or concerned by Garda Commissioner Nóirín O’Sullivan’s attempts – via senior counsel Colm Smyth – to undermine Sgt Maurice McCabe’s credibility during the commission of investigation by Justice Kevin O’Higgins into Sgt McCabe’s complaints of malpractice.

Ms Fitzgerald’s appearance came after journalist Katie Hannon revealed transcripts of the exchanges between Mr Smyth and Mr O’Higgins which can be read here.

Grab a tay.

Miriam O’Callaghan: “Were you taken aback to discover the approach that the Commissioner and her legal team took in the O’Higgins’ investigation which was to challenge the motivation and credibility of the whistleblower Maurice McCabe? Were you taken aback by that?”

Frances Fitzgerald: “Well, let’s put this into context. What we’re hearing about tonight is partial evidence, apparently, a transcript that was given at a Commission of Inquiry that interviewed 97 witnesses, took over 34 days of hearings, was held in private – nobody asked for it to be held in public – and a couple of weeks ago we had the report given to me and then published after certain legal actions, 360 pages of a report, making a lot of recommendations, having examined the issues that Sean Guerin had examined in a preliminary way two years ago.”

O’Callaghan: “Ok.”

Fitzgerald: “Now it’s illegal to publish these transcripts. For me to comment on them, I don’t know whether their partial, whether they’re full and I think it is undermining of the overall commissioned report when we select out certain transcripts. So I do have to make that point…”

O’Callaghan: “Let me come back in there. OK. But let me come back in on my  original question..”

Fitzgerald: “Yes, can I…”

O’Callaghan: “…which was: are you taken aback by the approach that the Commissioner and her legal team took at the O’Higgins investigation in relation to the whistleblower Maurice McCabe? Because, in public, the Commissioner was talking about valuing his role as a whistleblower and yet, in private, in these sessions – and they’re now public –  she was actually actively challenging the motivation and his credibility.”

Fitzgerald: “I don’t think it’s appropriate for me, as minister for justice, to go into the details of the instructions that were or weren’t given to a particular legal team…”

O’Callaghan: “But they’re in the public domain now minister.”

Fitzgerald: “Illegally and one doesn’t know how comprehensive they are, but the point I want to make…”

O’Callaghan: “But they’re true, that’s the point…”

Fitzgerald: “Well…”

O’Callaghan: “That’s the role and the approach that the Commissioner adopted. And I’m just asking you: are you surprised at that approach?”

Fitzgerald: “What I have to say to you is that you’re asking me to second guess the commission effectively by your question. Because what we have is a Justice O’Higgins who heard all of the evidence, who was in the unique position to hear everything, to see the approach of all the different legal teams, to interview witnesses and in his final report he does not include the particular points that you’ve made.”

O’Callaghan: “Are you happy that this was excluded?”

Fitzgerald: “But what I have to say…”

O’Callaghan: “No, no, actually, that’s an important point minister.”

Fitzgerald: “It is an important point.”

O’Callaghan: “Are you happy that that exchange was excluded from the final report?”

Fitzgerald: “But what you’re asking me to do and I want to go on and answer your point in relation to the Commissioner but you’re asking me to actually second guess  a commission of..”

O’Callaghan: “I’m not.”

Fitzgerald: “You are..”

O’Callaghan: “You just said it wasn’t in the final report…”

Fitzgerald: “Yes.”

O’Callaghan: “And I’m asking you are you surprised that exchange isn’t in the final report?”

Fitzgerald: “But I have to accept what Justice O’Higgins who we gave the statutory responsibility to do: to do this investigation, this Commission of Investigation. This is a methodology that’s, if you like, well tried and tested. I accept fully, as does the Government, the findings in the report and I believe we should be focusing on those now and the role of victims particularly and the changes that are needed to be made in An Garda Siochana in relation to investigations but in relation to the Commissioner, can I say that, what I have to go by, is what she said in her statement last night where she says that ‘Sgt Maurice McCabe’s contribution is valued and the service is changed for the better in response to the issues about which he complained’.”

O’Callaghan: “But minister, that is totally at variance with what her lawyers, acting on her instructions, were doing and saying about Maurice McCabe…”

Later

Fitzgerald: “For me to start commenting on that, is to take partial transcript that I don’t know the context, what happened before it, what happened after it. I have to go on what the Commission of Investigation said. What they, what Justice O’Higgins said in the 370 pages and I go on what the Commissioner said in relation to her approach..”

Watch Prime Time back in full here

Earlier: Clarifying Matters

‘We Shouldn’t Lose Sight Of The Victims’

dublin

It is with alarm that I read Frank MacDonald’s article about the new definition of “low rise” for the purposes of the draft Dublin City Development Plan.

In any European context, and in particular in an Irish context, the idea that up to 28 metres (nine storeys) could be “low rise” is a serious abuse of language and can only be designed to confuse the average citizen.

The development plan has been called an environmental contract between the city and its citizens and there should be no room for confusion or misinterpretation.

The attempt to dissemble is made worse by the fact that this is not the first time that the description of allowable building heights has been fudged.

In the defunct policy document Maximising the City’s Potential, earlier efforts to increase building heights, without actually clearly defining what that would mean, were rejected.

The unique selling point of Dublin is its scale, with big skies and the sight of the mountains at the end of the road. We can increase density and “maximise” its potential without destroying that quality.

Let us not try to compare ourselves to London and New York but rather to cities of similar population and scale. Above all , let us not pretend that any building up to nine storeys high is “low rise”.

Jane Lanigan,
Dublin 4.

FIGHT!

Building heights in Dublin (Irish Times letters)

Pic via Gravity Bar

The-Accountant

What you may need to know:

1. Accountant Chris Wolff (Ben Affleck) leads a double life as a sleeper assassin for the world’s most dangerous criminal organisations.

2. This looks Excel-lent.

3. Sure, Batman V Superman (2016)  wasn’t great, but you can’t really fault Affleck’s take on the Dark Knight.

4. Batman will be keeping Affleck occupied for the foreseeable future. The Caped Crusader is leading two Justice League movies and will have a cameo in Suicide Squad (2016).

5. In addition, Affleck’s fourth directorial effort, Live by Night, is due in October 2017. Who’s a busy boy?

6. Broadsheet prognosis: Books will be balanced.

Release Date: November 4.

(Mark writes about film and TV at WhyBother.ie)

tonyo'brien

anne-marie-291x300

From top: Tony O’Brien, chief executive of the HSE; Anne Marie McNally

Do we want to live in a country where our wellbeing is determined by our bank balance?

Ann Marie McNally writes:

A conversation over a few pints on Saturday night went something along the lines of ‘I went the doctor last week and she sent me straight to the hospital with a letter for an urgent appointment…three days later I got a letter for an appointment in the middle of July’.

The person, my own demographic, was horrified to learn that I didn’t have private health insurance.

I don’t, I cancelled it about three years ago when, despite paying around €1800 a year, it still cost me a fortune to be treated for a broken leg in the swift clinic of which I was only entitled to claim €300 back.

The economics of it didn’t make sense to me so I cancelled. I figured, hey I get an MOT every year, I’m doing good and surely I’d be better of saving a few bob for an emergency medical fund in case it’s ever needed. Seemed rational at the time.

Fast forward three years and the visit to the doctors which resulted in the information that I was to make my way to the hospital post haste.

The Doctor (whom I’d paid €70 to see) asked me the insurance question. No, says I, but I’d be prepared to pay for the required procedure privately.

She nodded understandingly but said;

‘Can I advise that unless you have approximately €10,000 you’re prepared to spend on this then I don’t recommend you go the private route. The initial consultation may be fine but if there are further interventions and a possible hospital stay involved then the costs will rapidly mount.’

Needless to say, I was shocked and promptly reassured her I’d stick with the public system!

I trotted off to the hospital and 3 days later when I got the letter advising me of the mid-July appointment, I was pleasantly surprised. That’s not bad at all I thought, 2.5 months, that’s a hell of a lot better than I’d expected.

It was only in conversations with friends the following day that I realised my expectations were ridiculously low.

A significant health concern, a doctor’s letter with urgent written all over it and my expectation was for an appointment longer than 2.5 months into the future! Is that how conditioned to poor public services I had become?

In the meantime, had I the financial wherewithal to stump up the money that it would have cost (still an undetermined amount), I’d have been seen to that week and any potentially dangerous issues dealt with or peace of mind restored with an all-clear.

My health, and potentially my life, was to be determined by how much money was in my bank account. In a civilised democratic society my health was suddenly less important than the person who had more money than me. T

hat’s ultimately what it boils down to…your wellbeing is determined by your bank balance.

How civilised is that?

Last week a Motion the Social Democrats put forward was signed by 89 TDs. A majority of the Dáil and a mixture of deputies from across the party and independent spectrum. Soon after, the newly appointed Minister for Health intimated on national media that he supported something similar.

That Motion was a call for the establishment of a Cross-Party Forum on Health with a view to achieving a single tier universally accessible healthcare system.

A system where medical need rather than bank balance would determine your healthcare treatment. A civilised system.

In Post World War 2 Britain the Tories and Labour came together and agreed on the need for such a system.

They put their differences aside and they made it happen, for the good of the nation. It’s time our politicians took a similarly mature approach to this most fundamental of issues.

Anne Marie McNally is a founding member of the Social Democrats. Follow Anne Marie on Twitter: @amomcnally