Amnesty investigate garda brutality 1976
Free State Papers – 1977: Amnesty called for inquiry into alleged Garda brutality 30 December 2007 By Brian Maye Serious questions about the Garda fingerprint section were raised following the investigation into the July 1976 assassination of the British ambassador by the IRA. An inquiry was carried out by the Deputy Commissioner, Patrick McLaughlin, and four members of the Garda Technical Bureau were transferred internally. The first reports of suspected Garda brutality appeared in the press in February 1977. Three meaty files have been released by the Department of the Taoiseach under the title Complaints against Gardai. These relate mainly to conditions in Portlaoise Prison where high-security IRA and IRSP prisoners were held. Minister for justice Patrick Cooney, in reply to a Dail question in February 1977, said he was satisfied that allegations about the mistreatment of prisoners were unfounded. In an accompanying memo, entitled Conditions in Portlaoise Prison, which showed the curtailment of visits and free association, and that strip searches were happening, the minister stated that ‘‘the level of discipline in the prison is what must be imposed because it is necessary’’. In mid-April, Amnesty International (AI) wrote to Cooney to express concern about the alleged ill-treatment of some Portlaoise prisoners. It singled out the practice of strip searching. AI urged the minister ‘‘to establish and give full facilities to an independent and public inquiry’’ into the allegations. Cooney’s reply to the secretary general of AI enclosed a number of memoranda explaining the necessity of strip searches and other disciplinary measures. Amnesty sent two representatives to Ireland for a week in mid-June to investigate the allegations, and in late August wrote again to the Irish government (Fianna Fail had been back in power since July 5), attaching their representatives’ report and requesting ‘‘an impartial investigation’’ on the grounds that the report justified such an inquiry. There followed a number of press articles (also in the files released), on September 2 and 3, concerning the AI report. The Irish Times article, which was the most detailed, said that Amnesty was confident the Fianna Fail government would hold an inquiry into the charges of Garda ill-treatment of suspects, ‘‘in contrast to the Coalition administration which did not co-operate with Amnesty’s own investigation’’. The article went on to say that AI had been impressed by Fianna Fail’s policy on the matter while in opposition, when Gerry Collins (now Minister for Justice) had pressed for an inquiry. In its ‘‘Press Diary’’ of September 6, an Irish Press correspondent remarked on the oddness of the silence surrounding the circumstances in which AI’s allegations of Garda brutality came to be published. It seemed, the correspondent continued, that the report was leaked to the Irish Times, which ran a detailed story on it. According to the secretary general of AI, only one copy of the report had been sent from its London office to Ireland - to the Taoiseach - and it hadn’t been leaked by AI. ‘‘Now, if that is true, the leak must have come from a high government source in Dublin, and that surely raises startling questions about the government’s attitude to the gardaý´,” concluded the Irish Press piece. A government meeting on the Amnesty report, held on September 6, decided that the Minister for Justice would send a copy of the report to the Garda Commissioner, with a request for his comments within 14 days, and would then report back to the government. The following day, the Irish Association of Civil Liberty (IACL) wrote to the government calling for the setting up of an independent police tribunal on the grounds that police examining charges of alleged misconduct by police was unsatisfactory. A memo from the Taoiseach’s office of September 14 showed that both the AI report and the IACL suggestion were being given serious consideration. In fact, an Assistant Secretary to the government, Frank Murray, showed himself in favour of the IACL suggestion. O n the same day as the IACL letter, an article appeared in the Irish Times suggesting the government and the commissioner, Edmund Garvey, were in dispute over the Amnesty report. This article pointed out that Garvey had advised the former Minister for Justice that there was no need for an inquiry into the allegations of brutality, and that he had also expressed concern about the transfer of the four members of the Garda Technical Bureau after the McLaughlin inquiry. The article said the government’s course of action might in part be determined by the reaction of Garvey and that government sources believed he preferred an internal inquiry. The Irish Times piece also said it was likely that some of the internal Garda changes that followed the fingerprinting inquiry might be reviewed. Garvey was sacked by the Lynch government in January 1978. He later won an unfair dismissal case when the Supreme Court found the government had acted improperly in sacking him. There is nothing in the 1977 files to show to what extent, if any, differences over the AI report contributed to Garvey’s removal but clearly the Irish Times had got wind of something at the time. In late September and early October, the government considered the AI request of late August for an impartial, independent and public inquiry into allegations of Garda brutality. The Minister for Justice prepared a memo for his cabinet colleagues on the Amnesty report, on which the office of the Attorney General and the Department of the Taoiseach commented. The decision reached was to appoint a three-member committee, comprising a judge, a prominent trade unionist and a public servant. The committee was to conduct private inquiries and to report to the government as a matter of urgency on the treatment of suspects in recent years. The report would be published only if the government decided to do so. It was envisaged that the committee would form the basis of a body which would handle complaints against gardai. Interestingly, the Taoiseach expressed some annoyance that the Irish Times seemed to have received a full account of the government decision in advance of the official statement. He warned that if this apparent breach of cabinet secrecy continued, he would have to question members about their contacts with the press. The government also decided to appoint a senior Garda officer to investigate complaints of ill-treatment of suspects and to report to the DPP, who would decide if there were sufficient grounds to justify prosecution. On October 17, AI wrote to Collins to express its regret that the committee would not investigate ‘‘specific cases of alleged mistreatment’’ because Amnesty felt these cases could not be prosecuted through the normal channels, ie, the courts. It called once again for ‘‘a full, independent and public inquiry’’ and urged the government to extend the committee’s mandate to enable it to investigate specific allegations, ‘‘by collecting information directly from alleged victims, the police and other sources, and that the Irish government make public the findings of the committee’’. The letter went on to list a number of other safeguards for suspects detained, and called for ‘‘the introduction of an independent element’’ in investigating complaints against police. We will have to await next year’s release of files to find out subsequent developments in this story
Free State Papers – 1977: Amnesty called for inquiry into alleged Garda brutality 30 December 2007 By Brian Maye Serious questions about the Garda fingerprint section were raised following the investigation into the July 1976 assassination of the British ambassador by the IRA. An inquiry was carried out by the Deputy Commissioner, Patrick McLaughlin, and four members of the Garda Technical Bureau were transferred internally. The first reports of suspected Garda brutality appeared in the press in February 1977. Three meaty files have been released by the Department of the Taoiseach under the title Complaints against Gardai. These relate mainly to conditions in Portlaoise Prison where high-security IRA and IRSP prisoners were held. Minister for justice Patrick Cooney, in reply to a Dail question in February 1977, said he was satisfied that allegations about the mistreatment of prisoners were unfounded. In an accompanying memo, entitled Conditions in Portlaoise Prison, which showed the curtailment of visits and free association, and that strip searches were happening, the minister stated that ‘‘the level of discipline in the prison is what must be imposed because it is necessary’’. In mid-April, Amnesty International (AI) wrote to Cooney to express concern about the alleged ill-treatment of some Portlaoise prisoners. It singled out the practice of strip searching. AI urged the minister ‘‘to establish and give full facilities to an independent and public inquiry’’ into the allegations. Cooney’s reply to the secretary general of AI enclosed a number of memoranda explaining the necessity of strip searches and other disciplinary measures. Amnesty sent two representatives to Ireland for a week in mid-June to investigate the allegations, and in late August wrote again to the Irish government (Fianna Fail had been back in power since July 5), attaching their representatives’ report and requesting ‘‘an impartial investigation’’ on the grounds that the report justified such an inquiry. There followed a number of press articles (also in the files released), on September 2 and 3, concerning the AI report. The Irish Times article, which was the most detailed, said that Amnesty was confident the Fianna Fail government would hold an inquiry into the charges of Garda ill-treatment of suspects, ‘‘in contrast to the Coalition administration which did not co-operate with Amnesty’s own investigation’’. The article went on to say that AI had been impressed by Fianna Fail’s policy on the matter while in opposition, when Gerry Collins (now Minister for Justice) had pressed for an inquiry. In its ‘‘Press Diary’’ of September 6, an Irish Press correspondent remarked on the oddness of the silence surrounding the circumstances in which AI’s allegations of Garda brutality came to be published. It seemed, the correspondent continued, that the report was leaked to the Irish Times, which ran a detailed story on it. According to the secretary general of AI, only one copy of the report had been sent from its London office to Ireland - to the Taoiseach - and it hadn’t been leaked by AI. ‘‘Now, if that is true, the leak must have come from a high government source in Dublin, and that surely raises startling questions about the government’s attitude to the gardaý´,” concluded the Irish Press piece. A government meeting on the Amnesty report, held on September 6, decided that the Minister for Justice would send a copy of the report to the Garda Commissioner, with a request for his comments within 14 days, and would then report back to the government. The following day, the Irish Association of Civil Liberty (IACL) wrote to the government calling for the setting up of an independent police tribunal on the grounds that police examining charges of alleged misconduct by police was unsatisfactory. A memo from the Taoiseach’s office of September 14 showed that both the AI report and the IACL suggestion were being given serious consideration. In fact, an Assistant Secretary to the government, Frank Murray, showed himself in favour of the IACL suggestion. O n the same day as the IACL letter, an article appeared in the Irish Times suggesting the government and the commissioner, Edmund Garvey, were in dispute over the Amnesty report. This article pointed out that Garvey had advised the former Minister for Justice that there was no need for an inquiry into the allegations of brutality, and that he had also expressed concern about the transfer of the four members of the Garda Technical Bureau after the McLaughlin inquiry. The article said the government’s course of action might in part be determined by the reaction of Garvey and that government sources believed he preferred an internal inquiry. The Irish Times piece also said it was likely that some of the internal Garda changes that followed the fingerprinting inquiry might be reviewed. Garvey was sacked by the Lynch government in January 1978. He later won an unfair dismissal case when the Supreme Court found the government had acted improperly in sacking him. There is nothing in the 1977 files to show to what extent, if any, differences over the AI report contributed to Garvey’s removal but clearly the Irish Times had got wind of something at the time. In late September and early October, the government considered the AI request of late August for an impartial, independent and public inquiry into allegations of Garda brutality. The Minister for Justice prepared a memo for his cabinet colleagues on the Amnesty report, on which the office of the Attorney General and the Department of the Taoiseach commented. The decision reached was to appoint a three-member committee, comprising a judge, a prominent trade unionist and a public servant. The committee was to conduct private inquiries and to report to the government as a matter of urgency on the treatment of suspects in recent years. The report would be published only if the government decided to do so. It was envisaged that the committee would form the basis of a body which would handle complaints against gardai. Interestingly, the Taoiseach expressed some annoyance that the Irish Times seemed to have received a full account of the government decision in advance of the official statement. He warned that if this apparent breach of cabinet secrecy continued, he would have to question members about their contacts with the press. The government also decided to appoint a senior Garda officer to investigate complaints of ill-treatment of suspects and to report to the DPP, who would decide if there were sufficient grounds to justify prosecution. On October 17, AI wrote to Collins to express its regret that the committee would not investigate ‘‘specific cases of alleged mistreatment’’ because Amnesty felt these cases could not be prosecuted through the normal channels, ie, the courts. It called once again for ‘‘a full, independent and public inquiry’’ and urged the government to extend the committee’s mandate to enable it to investigate specific allegations, ‘‘by collecting information directly from alleged victims, the police and other sources, and that the Irish government make public the findings of the committee’’. The letter went on to list a number of other safeguards for suspects detained, and called for ‘‘the introduction of an independent element’’ in investigating complaints against police. We will have to await next year’s release of files to find out subsequent developments in this story