Tag Archives: Jim O’Callaghan

Fianna Fáil TD Jim O’Callaghan

This afternoon.

Fight!

Heave!

Monday: Derek Mooney: You Can’t Expel Me…I’ve Already Quit

Rollingnews

Meanwhile…

Josepha Madigan

Rollingnews

Dara Calleary

This morning

Meanwhile..

Jim O’Callaghan

FIGHT!

TDs ‘perplexed’ as Jim O’Callaghan among heavy hitters overlooked for Cabinet (Independent.ie)

Earlier: You Can’t Expel Me…I’ve Quit

Garda checkpoint earlier this month; Fianna Fáil justice spokesman Jim O’Callaghan

Yesterday…

In the Business Post

Aiden Corkery reported that An Garda Síochána are looking into using drones as part of their work. Mr Corkery reported:

Minister for Justice Charlie Flanagan said that a working group within the force has begun studying how it could use drones in a variety of roles such as crime scene mapping, evidence collection, traffic management, investigation of collisions, public order policing, crowd control, search and rescue operations and frontline unit support.

…The Minister’s comments were in response to a parliamentary question from Jim O’Callaghan, Fianna Fáil’s justice spokesman, who said it was surprising that the force was not already using drones.

“The use of drones would be very helpful in certain police work such as mapping crime scenes and securing evidence arising from fatal collisions on our roads,” O’Callaghan told the Business Post.

“The minister and Gardaí should expedite the use of drones in certain types of police work so that the latest technological advancements are available to the Gardaí in their ongoing efforts to protect the public.”

Gardaí to look into using drones for first time (Aiden Corkery, Business Post)

Meanwhile, also yesterday in the Business Post

Further to a report in March by Sean Finnan in the Dublin Inquirer about the installation of Hikvision CCTV with facial recognition technology at Bluebell Community Centre in Inchicore by Dublin City Council…

Peter O’Dwyer reported that Dublin City Council will no longer use Hikvision cameras:

The council confirmed that it had not installed Hikvision cameras at any other locations in the city, nor did it intend to do so going forward.

“Hikvision cameras were not installed in any other projects, only conventional CCTV cameras. DCC does not propose to use Hikvision cameras [at any other location],” the spokeswoman said.

It’s not yet clear if the new National Children’s Hospital will use the technology that has now been dropped by Dublin City Council.

DCC to cease using ‘blacklisted’ CCTV firm (Peter O’Dwyer, Business Post)

Previously: Then Your Children Will Be Next

Rollingnews

Fianna Fail Justice Spokesman Jim O’Callaghan (left) and Regina Doherty, Fine Gael Minister for Employment Affairs and Social Protection

This morning.

Fianna Fáil’s Jim O’Callaghan and Fine Gael’s Regina Doherty spoke to Seán O’Rourke on RTÉ Radio One.

It followed a front-page story in today’s Irish Independent, by Shane Phelan, about Mr O’Callaghan having previously represented former Sinn Féin president Gerry Adams.

Mr O’Callaghan accused Ms Doherty as having been “wheeled out” by Fine Gael’s press office while Ms Doherty repeatedly said it was all about “trust”.

From the interview…

Jim O’Callaghan: “This applies to every barrister in the country. You’re obliged to represent a person who seeks your legal services simply because you’re doing that doesn’t mean you’re endorsing their politics.”

Seán O’Rourke: “Are you saying then, if you were to decline the offer…barristers all the time decline certain offers of work for various reasons. Are you saying had you declined the opportunity to work for Gerry Adams, you would have been discriminating against him?”

O’Callaghan: “Can I say this to you as well, you will know, as well Seán, from your knowledge of the law, that I am not permitted to talk about individual cases. But I can talk to you in the generality about it. It’s a breach of the constitution for me to talk about individual cases. But can I say this: if somebody seeks your legal services and the way the system of justice operates in this country, is that if somebody, a solicitor, comes to a barrister, looking for that barrister to represent a client, the barrister must act. Unless there is some reason as to why the barrister cannot act.

“And when people approach me, whether it’s the Fine Gael ministers or indeed Sinn Féin politicians, or SDLP politicians, I will represent them to the best of my ability. And obviously things have changed since I became a TD in 2016.

“And now because I’m a national spokesperson it would be more difficult for me to represent certain people because it would probably be against their interest to help me represent them. But, listen, if Regina Doherty ever gets into legal difficulties, I’d be happy to represent her to the same way I represented previous Fine Gael TDs and Fine Gael ministers in the past.”

O’Rourke: “Regina Doherty?”

Regina Doherty: “Now there’s an offer, Seán, ha? You know what, I have huge respect from Jim and he is an eminent barrister and has a huge reputation and that’s not to be taken away. But the code of conduct does also allow whether a conflict of interest, or a likely conflict of interest might arise, for someone to step away from the case.

“But what we have here is a case of Fianna Fáil want us to do what they say not what they do. And you just said Seán, that the consistent message coming from Fianna Fáil, that they won’t go into Government with Sinn Féin.

“Unfortunately that’s not the case. We have a long litany of people in Fianna Fáil that have said over the last number of years that they will go into Government with Sinn Féin…”

O’Rourke: “No but can we discuss that…

Talk over each other

O’Rourke: “No, sorry, Regina O’Doherty, can we just confine this conversation to Jim O’Callaghan representing Gerry Adams and what that might mean for Fianna Fáil going into Government with Sinn Féin if it means that at all.”

Doherty: “What’s important about this, Seán, is that you have to be able to trust in what people say. Before people go to the door, or go to the ballot box on Saturday or they make that decision, I think that’s fair for them to know, can they trust what Fianna Fáil say and is it fair for Jim O’Callaghan to come out and lambaste Sinn Féin for their policies and for their past, political manoeuvres and seemingly be able to take their coin and do their work.

“And it’s not just Jim, to be fair. It’s John McGuinness, it’s Kevin O’Keeffe, it’s Mary Butler. Even Micheál Martin himself, in December 2017, said he’s not saying ‘never’ about going into Government with Sinn Féin. So the only people you can trust here that absolutely, unequivocally will not go into Government with Sinn Féin is Fine Gael.”

O’Rourke: “Jim O’Callaghan?”

O’Callaghan: “Well I think, with all due respect to Regina. This is a fairly low blow. They’re trying to conflate work done by a barrister who subsequently becomes a politician with work done as a politician. Under no circumstances will Fianna Fáil be going into Government with Sinn Féin.

“Simply because in the past I have represented Sinn Féin politicians, does not mean that I’m going to be saying to Micheál Martin ‘let’s go into Government with them’. Just as because I represented Fine Gael politicians in the past doesn’t mean I’m going to say to Micheál Martin ‘let us get in with Fine Gael’. The reality is and the public understand this. The function of a barrister is to represent fearlessly the person who seeks their legal services. And when you’re asked to represent somebody, you must represent somebody.”

O’Rourke: “Are you saying this, Jim O’Callaghan, are there two of you? I mean there’s Jim O’Callaghan the barrister and Jim O’Callaghan the politician.”

O’Callaghan: “Well, no. There aren’t two of me. There’s one of me. But I did have a life before politics, unlike some people in politics and I do have experience working as a barrister and the administration of justice. And I think that it’s extremely important for the administration of justice that we do not have a situation in this country that operates say in the United States, where lawyers become very partisan and lawyers will only represent people with whom they feel an affinity. And what happens then is that you get lawyers making public comments about their clients.

“We don’t do that in this country and it is very important that the independence of the Bar is maintained. Any person who represents, I represent, I’m not affected in any way by their representation of them. My politics aren’t represented by my representation of them and my views aren’t represented…”

O’Rourke: “And did you…”

Talk over each other

Callaghan: “I’ll just finish this Seán. I was asked to do a job in the same way, for instance, if a patient goes into Dr James Reilly or into Dr Leo Varadkar and sought treatment – that patient is entitled and would get the best treatment from those doctors because those are acting professionally.

“Similarly, anyone who comes to me, irrespective of their politics, if they come seeking my legal services. I give them the best treatment possible.”

O’Rourke: “And there’s also the point, Regina O’Doherty, that, according to the Independent, Jim O’Callaghan began representing Gerry Adams in 2015, when he was not a member of Dáil Éireann.”

Doherty: “Which is why, in the code of interest, the conflict of interest, or the likely arrival of a conflict of interest is a reason that you would refute the case. Jim was desperately attempting to be a TD in 2015 and [inaudible]. This is about trust, Seán.”

O’Rourke: “No, no, hold on a tick, now. I mean, just the point he makes…on the point he makes: you know, would Leo Varadkar, in his days as a doctor, have refused somebody who came in looking for treatment simply because that was a Sinn Féin person?”

Doherty: “No, but Leo Varadkar is not going out the next day and lambasting the people that’s he representing. That’s the difference here. So you have to ask yourself the question: can you trust Fianna Fáil when they tell you that they won’t go into Government with Fianna Fáil, or with Sinn Féin?”

“When they are consistently telling you, Pat ‘The Cope’ Gallagher, Darragh O’Brien, Anne Rabbite, you know there’s a reason Micheál Martin is a sole trader in this general election campaign. It’s because you can’t trust the Fianna Fáilers to be let out on the plinth because they let the cat out of the bag.”

“This is all about trust….”

O’Rourke: “Regina O’Doherty, just as a matter of interest, I mean are you, as a Fine Gael TD, are you accusing Jim O’Callaghan of double jobbing as well?”

Doherty: “No, I think there’s lots of TDs who have jobs. I think the only people who are precluded from having a job, a second job, are actual ministers. So that’s not an issue…”

O’Rourke: “Ok.”

Doherty: “This is about trust, Seán.”

O’Callaghan: “I’m sorry. This is about politics. This is about a general election taking place on Saturday. This is about a story coming out the day in advance of the general election. And it’s difficult for me, Seán. Because I’m not allowed to comment upon individual cases. So that means I can’t really dispute Regina’s claim that there’s a conflict of interest here, you know, the circumstances of the case in which I previously represented a person.

“I’m not going to talk about the case but all I would say is the public is aware that a barrister is asked to represent a client and does so without fear or favour and without any concern for the politics of clients.

“And that is something that we need to maintain in our independent legal system.”

O’Rourke: “And before you go mentioning Pat ‘The Cope’ and all the rest…”

Talk over each other

Doherty: “…and I won’t list off the names because I think they’re well rehearsed. A barrister is also justified when [inaudible] a case, where there is a conflict of interest arises or likely to arise.

“And I think Jim, in fairness, in 2013 you were on the ticket to be a Fianna Fáil TD in your constituency and you were successful in the 2016 election. [Inaudible]. I didn’t write the story this morning, I don’t know who did. But this is about a matter of trust and whether you can be trusted to say what you do. You need to walk the walk and talk the talk.

“So that’s what this is about.”

O’Callaghan: “Well now, Regina, you talk about a conflict of interest. You can’t state what it is. People come to me, all the time, looking for…

Talk over each other

Doherty: “No, what it is is you’re saying one thing and doing another. That’s what it is. It’s immaterial what the court case is about, Jim.”

O’Callaghan: “Regina, you know…”

Doherty: “The court case is irrelevant, this is about you. This is about whether you’re willing to walk the walk as well as talk the talk. That’s what this is about.”

O’Callaghan: “Regina you’ve just been sent out by Fine Gael press office to try and inflict some damage upon me…”

Doherty: “Excuse me, do not dare insult me…”

O’Callaghan: “I’m not trying to insult you.”

Doherty: “I am a public representative for 11 years and I’m well entitled to make representations on my own behalf and on the people who are going to vote on Saturday because you’re dead right: this is about the election on Saturday. But it’s about whether people can trust Fianna Fáil when they say they won’t go into Government with Sinn Féin.

“Because it’s clear now that they can’t. And you’re not on your own Jim. You’ve a long list of your colleagues who’ll go into power with Sinn Féin because they don’t really care who they go in with. They just want power.”

Later

O’Rourke: “Is there an element of desperation with Fine Gael wanting to score political points on this today?”

Doherty: “Who broke the story Seán? Because I don’t know who broke the story. I only reacted to it at about 6.30am, 6.45am this morning.”

O’Rourke: “Yeah, by Shane Phelan [Irish Independent journalist] who broke another important story about Fine Gael which was the Maria Bailey story about six or eight months ago.”

Doherty: “So clearly he’s a very good journalist.”

O’Rourke: “Yeah, but I mean, in reacting to it…”

Talk over each other

Later

O’Rourke: “You’re drawing the conclusion that because Jim O’Callaghan worked as a barrister for Gerry Adams in a case that had nothing to do with politics, that therefore he cannot be trusted when he says ‘Fianna Fáil will not go into Government with Sinn Féin?”

Doherty: “The conclusion I’m drawing, Seán. Is that you have to talk the talk and walk the walk.”

O’Rourke: “There you are, Jim O’Callaghan?”

O’Callaghan: “Well I don’t really understand the point. Every day of the week, barristers represent people who are in trouble and who are perceived in a very negative light by the public. It is extremely important that those barristers continue to represent people who are before our courts.

“If they don’t, we end up having a marginalised justice system in this country. Like just because a barrister is representing somebody down in the criminal courts today it doesn’t mean that that barrister in some way is endorsing the criminal act of which they have been accused. Like it completely undermines the system of justice if you start imputing to a barrister representing a client the actions or background of that client.”

Later

O’Rourke: “[After he became a TD] You could have handed over your brief to another colleague.”

O’Callaghan: “All I can say to you is: you don’t know what happened in the case that’s on the front page of the Irish Independent today after I became a TD and I can’t tell you because I have a duty of confidentiality and the code of conduct precludes me from talking in public.”

O’Rourke: “But can you see, perhaps even in appearance of hypocrisy here?”

O’Callaghan: “No, none whatsoever. Like there was a great barrister up in Northern Ireland called Des Boal, he represented very many people who were accused of membership of the provisional IRA. He was the founding member of the DUP. The legal system in this country has always operated on the basis that barristers, irrespective of their politics, will represent people from any background.

“And I know there aren’t senior counsel Fine Gael TDs at present but there was a long tradition of Fine Gael senior counsels who also operated as TDs and it was always the case that the Irish Bar, that if a Fianna Fáil minister was in difficulty, they would go and seek the advice of a Fine Gael senior counsel to represent them. That’s the tradition that exists in the Irish Bar.

“That you represent people, irrespective if you disagree with them or irrespective of whether their politics are different to yours. And it’s simply unfair and wrong for Fine Gael to suggest that, simply because I represented individuals who have different politics to me, that I now adopt the policies of those individuals.”

Listen back in full here

Earlier: Well Now

UPDATE:

Just before 2pm, when the radio and television moratorium on election coverage began, the Council of the Bar of Ireland released the following statement:

“It is the duty of barristers to be independent and free from any influence, especially such as may arise from their personal interests or external pressure, in the discharge of their professional duties as barristers.

“Barristers cannot discriminate in favour of or against any person availing, or seeking to avail, of the services of the barrister on the grounds of race, colour, sex, sexual orientation, language politics, religion, nationality, national or social origin, national minority, birth or other status.

“This is detailed in the Code of Conduct of The Bar of Ireland, to which all members of the independent referral bar are bound.

“It is in accordance with the provision that everyone is entitled to access to justice, which is central to trust in the Irish legal system and the rule of law.”

The fundamental importance of an independent referral bar (The Bar of Ireland)

Fianna Fáil justice spokesman and barrister Jim O’Callaghan advised Former Sinn Féin President Gerry Adams

This morning.

Via Independent.ie:

Mr O’Callaghan yesterday led his party’s attacks on Sinn Féin over its handling of the Paul Quinn murder.

But the Irish Independent has learned the TD, who also works as a barrister, was hired by former Sinn Féin president Mr Adams to act in a defamation action against a national newspaper.

According to court filings, Mr O’Callaghan helped draft a statement of claim for Mr Adams

…Asked how he could square his representation of Mr Adams with his stance on Sinn Féin, Mr O’Callaghan defended his actions. He referenced the code of conduct of the Irish Bar which prohibits discriminating in favour of or against any person availing of their services.

Good times.

Revealed: FF TD’s work on legal case for Gerry Adams (Indpendent.ie)

Rollingnews

This morning.

Fianna Fail Generel Election HQ.

At a Press Briefing on Crime and Drugs were, top pic from left: Fianna Fail Spokesperson on Drugs John Curran, Fianna Fáil Justice Spokesperson Jim O’Callaghan, and Dublin City Councillor Mary Fitzpatrick.

Meanwhile

Leah Farrell/RollingNews

ocallaghanfitz

This evening.

Leinster House, Dublin 2.

Further to her meeting with Garda Commissioner Noirin O’Sullivan yesterday.

Justice Minister Frances Fitzgerald made a statement about the latest Garda controversies including the near one million breathalyser tests that gardaí claimed they carried out, but didn’t, and the 14,700 wrongful convictions for motoring offences.

During her statement, Ms Fitzgerald said “the scale and detail of these issues became apparent last week at the Garda press conference but I want to say I’m determined that all of the facts will emerge”.

She also said:

An anonymous complaint was made to the Road Safety Authority in April 2014, outlining a number of issues which included the operation of mandatory alcohol testing, MAT, checkpoints. This complaint was referred to An Garda Síochána by the then Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport.”

“An Garda Síochána indicated in a detailed letter to my Department in May 2014 that it had looked into the claims regarding MAT checkpoints and was satisfied that correct procedures were in place to account for MAT checkpoints that ultimately did go ahead. Every MAT checkpoint, as we know, must be authorised by an inspector.”

In June of last year my Department was made aware that some discrepancies had been identified in respect of MAT and that An Garda Síochána was commencing a national audit. An Garda Síochána indicated in June 2016 that no issues stemmed from this audit with regard to the performance of MAT checkpoints or prosecutions arising from same. It also set out the new procedures it had already introduced to facilitate the accurate recording of breath tests and outlined that an IT solution had been developed and would be implemented towards the end of 2016.

“Following this preliminary notification to my Department last year, updates were sought from An Garda Síochána by officials in my Department on a regular basis as to the progress of the audit that was then taking place. An Garda Síochána indicated in February 2017 that it was anticipated that the national audit would be finalised in the second quarter of 2017. Although that audit has not yet been finalised, An Garda Síochána announced figures at its press conference relating to the discrepancy between the number of test conducted at MAT checkpoints as per its own records compared with the records held by the Medical Bureau of Road Safety.”

No indication was given as to the scale of this issue at the time of the June 2016 letter and indeed, it is clear from what the Commissioner told me yesterday and from her public statements, that it was not known at that time to Garda management either. It was in order to assess the scale of the problem that the national audit of MAT was launched. I did not become aware of the huge discrepancy in the breath test figures until it was revealed at last week’s Garda press conference.

Regarding the issue of fixed charge notices, my Department was informed in June 2016 of an error relating to summonses having been incorrectly issued to persons who should have received a fixed charge notice for the offence of not having a valid national car test, NCT, certificate, which became a fixed charge offence in December 2014. An Garda Síochána indicated that following on from those initial findings, further inquiries were being carried out relating to all summonses issued for other fixed charge offences.”

“Colleagues should note that a press statement was issued that day by An Garda Síochána about this issue. In that statement, An Garda Síochána confirmed that it had commenced a review of prosecutions relating to all fixed charge offences. The letter set out the remedial actions already taken by An Garda Síochána at that stage, which included withdrawing prosecutions in any affected cases and putting in place a short-term IT solution within four weeks while a longer-term IT solution was being developed.”

“Following the preliminary notifications of these problems to my Department last year, updates were sought on a regular basis as to the progress of the review taking place into the fixed charge processing system issues covering the period referred to in the letter from An Garda Síochána, from 1 January 2014 to 27 May 2016. The results of this review were communicated to my Department in a letter received on 14 March 2017.”

The letter indicated that a total of 1,781 cases had been identified where persons had been convicted in situations where they had been incorrectly summonsed to court, either without first having been issued a fixed charge notice or having been issued and paid a fixed charge notice. The letter also set out – this is important – that consultation remained ongoing with the Director of Public Prosecutions, DPP, with whose office there had been ongoing consultation and the Courts Service in regard to commencing the process of setting aside the convictions in the courts. That engagement with the DPP is ongoing.”

An Garda Síochána also advised in that letter, received recently on 14 March, that the DPP had indicated that the review should be extended to include cases before 2014 and that this process was now under way. That, of course, is why the audit was meant to be ongoing until June of this year. That was to be when I was to expect the final report. That is when I had been advised I would get the final report.”

I became aware of the figure of some 14,700 cases where a conviction took place after an incorrect procedure when An Garda Síochána made that information public last week. It is matter of great regret to me, as I know it is to everyone in this House, that anyone should be summoned to court inadvertently, with all of the consequences that follow for individuals. It is absolutely critical now that these mistakes be resolved and that the necessary remedial actions be taken.”

“As for the fixed charge penalty notice, FCPN, at my meeting with the Commissioner yesterday she assured me that arrangements are being put in place in regard to the persons affected. All of these cases will be appealed by An Garda Síochána to ensure the courts set aside these convictions, as they have to. All fines will, of course, be reimbursed and penalties will be removed, and all of those affected will be contacted directly by An Garda Síochána. Individual letters will be sent to all the people concerned and they will begin to be issued on 3 April.”

“The Commissioner also outlined to me the IT and operational solutions that have been put in place to ensure that these practices would cease. In fact, at the ministerial meeting yesterday, which was scheduled ahead of all of this emerging, both the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport, Deputy Ross, and I were assured by both Professor Cusack and all the other people present that the new procedures were in place, that we could be confident about the new procedures and that there are changes being made to the machines, using GPS and further information, so the kind of mistake associated with the technical attributes of the devices can never happen again.”

In the case of mandatory alcohol tests, An Garda Síochána initially put in place new paper-based recording and verification processes and, in November 2016, a new specific data-recording IT upgrade was installed on the Garda PULSE system.”

“The net effect of the new IT upgrade was that personnel now have to record the serial number of the device used for each breath test plus the meter reading before and after the checkpoint was concluded. This, apparently, was not being done before. It is clearly only one of the explanations for this situation. Data from the device are now used to verify the total number of breath tests conducted at each checkpoint.”

“The focus now, however, has to be on what is being done to get to the full truth of what transpired and the accountability that must be brought to bear. Clearly, there is a need for an investigation to hold responsible those people, at all levels of the Garda organisation, who allowed such large discrepancies in the breath-testing figures to arise.”

Meanwhile…

After making her statement, Ms Fitzgerald fielded questions from different politicians, including Fianna Fáil’s justice spokesman Jim O’Callaghan.

Jim O’Callaghan: “The Minister said in her statement that she became aware of the scale of the number of convictions only this month, when she was notified of it. When did she become aware in general that there were issues in respect of wrongful convictions arising from this matter?”

Frances Fitzgerald: “The answer to that is the letter that I received in June 2016 from, the department received it actually, from Michael Twomey, outlining that they were concerned about some issues. There was no figure mentioned so I was not aware of the 14,700 and I don’t believe that the gardai, at that point, were aware of it because that was an earlier stage. The audit wasn’t completed and they had put some procedures in place to make sure though, that they would not be further, there would not be further problems. But they hadn’t done a national audit at that point. So they weren’t sure about the figures. And it was only when they had the press conference last week that they did a national audit, that involved well over 100,000 and that then got to a point where it was the figure of 14,700 was arrived at. So they hadn’t done the full national audit at that point. Is my understanding. Is that right? [to assistant on her right].”

O’Callaghan:I’m taking from your answer that you were aware from June 2016 that there was an issue in respect of wrongful convictions that had been obtained  against persons in our district courts?

Fitzgerald: “Thank you [to assistant]. Yes, at that point, in the letter, they did of course, because they also put some solutions in place in relation to what had happened to different individuals, it was clear that they were concerned that there would be a number but they had no idea, from my understanding that there were 14,700 at that point. But they were concerned that some people would have been taken to court, summoned to court who should not have been summoned to court. And that some solutions had been put in place. They were obviously linking with the DPP and all of the relevant bodies. But that a full audit needed to be done and the figure of 14,700 emerged at the press conference just last week.”

O’Callaghan:Tanaiste, if you were aware in June 2016 that individuals had been wrongly convicted before our courts, you were Minister for Justice at that time. What did you do about it then?

Fitzgerald: “At that point what was being done was that the full scale of this issue was being examined to see precisely what the implications of it were. I was aware that action had been taken so that no further such mistakes could be made and I was awaiting the results of the full audit and my department was in contact with An Garda Siochana on a regular basis to ensure we would get the full audit.”

Later

O’Callaghan: “I just want to ask you another question and, before I ask you the other question, I want to just preface it by stating that, as Minister for Justice, you’ve been aware for nine months that there were wrongful convictions that took place before our district court, and, in my submission, you did nothing about it.”

“I want to now ask you about the issues in terms of breath test figures. We know that the Medical Bureau of Road  Safety raised this discrepancy with An Garda Siochana in July 2014. We know that the gardai conducted a review in the southern region in 2015. We know that they extended it out to the whole country in 2016 and we know that in November 2016, they introduced a new IT system in order to overcome the problem. I want to ask you two questions. First of all, when did you become aware of these problems with the breath test figures and, secondly, are you satisfied with the fact that An Garda Siochana, to this date, have not been able to explain to the Irish people why it is that 937,000 breath tests were falsely recorded on the PULSE system.”

Fitzgerald: “I have put it on the public record that I received a letter in June 2016 outlining that some issues had arisen and actually they were examining what they needed to do and that they were doing a full audit, that it would be completed in the second quarter of this year. That was the information that I had. And my department continued to be in contact with the gardai…”

Meanwhile….

Transcript of statement via Oireachtas.ie