Credibility is key word for Garda Inspectorate
However, there’s a real fear that the long-awaited and much-heralded Garda Inspectorate (or Ombudsman, as the office is likely to be known) could be a false dawn.
Justice Minister Michael McDowell has placed much political capital on the effectiveness of this new body. In the coming weeks he will publish the Garda Síochána Bill, the draft scheme of which was outlined last summer. However, a variety of interested groups and experts have expressed serious concern that the proposals fall far short of what is required.
The Human Rights Commission, the State’s human rights watchdog, recently published a detailed analysis of the proposals. The HRC list a number of concerns.
1. Appointment and Dismissal.
Under the Bill, the Government will appoint the inspectors, subject to the approval of the Oireachtas.
The Government can also dismiss an inspector where “he or she is unable or unfit to carry out his or her functions, or for any other reason he or she should be dismissed”.
The HRC said the appointment and dismissal processes “need to be sufficiently independent of the Government and be fully transparent”. It suggests the positions be publicly advertised and that an advisory body assess the candidates on their expertise in human rights and criminal justice.
The Bill also states that the entire staff from the Garda Complaints Board be automatically transferred to the inspectorate. The HRC is critical of this and recommends that this provision should be removed.
2. Investigative functions.
The Bill states the inspectorate is obliged to carry out an investigation itself only where the cases involve a death or serious injury. It can refer all other cases to the Garda Commissioner for investigation.
The HRC said this was too narrow and that substantial allegations of torture or of serious harassment or abusive behaviour on the grounds of race or sexual orientation should be included, regardless of whether they led to serious injury.
3. Investigative powers.
The HRC said that generally the inspectorate does not have the same powers as a garda to arrest and hold suspects when it is investigating a criminal offence, even where the behaviour under investigation has led to death or serious injury.
“It is therefore possible to conceive of a case involving serious allegations of wrongdoing where, given the inadequate powers of the Inspectorate, the Inspectorate may feel compelled to refer the case to the Commissioner for a more thorough and effective investigation to be carried out.
“This anomalous situation could seriously undermine the effectiveness of a Complaints Body and its ability to independently gather evidence for the purposes of an effective investigation as required under the European Convention of Human Rights.”
The HRC said the inspectorate did not have the power to preserve a crime scene or preserve evidence in the course of its investigations.
It recommends that the inspectorate be given the same powers of arrest and detention as gardaí and be allowed to preserve a crime scene.
The HRC also urges the removal of a requirement for the inspectorate to consult with the Garda Commissioner when it wants to investigate the conduct of a garda, where the inspectorate feels the garda may have committed a criminal offence but where no complaint has been made.The HRC also described as inadequate the time limit of six months for making a complaint and said this should be increased to 12 months.
It said the inspectorate should also have the right, deprived it in the Bill, to initiate an investigation where it is concerned that a policy or practice within the force is contributing to criminal or disciplinary misconduct.
The HRC said the “urgency of the present situation in relation to complaints” against gardaí was recently highlighted in the report of the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture. The report found that claims of people being mistreated and beaten by gardaí had “credibility”.
Credibility is the key word for the inspectorate also.



