‘I was naive to believe gun tale by Carthy’

THE psychiatrist who declared John Carthy fit to hold a shotgun said he may have been naive in believing the explanation Mr Carthy gave for the gardaí taking the gun from him in the first place.

Dr David Shanley also said Mr Carthy’s GP should have been told about a letter he sent to local gardaí recommending they return the gun, but he gave no reason why this was not done.

Dr Shanley told the Barr Tribunal Mr Carthy asked him in October 1998 to write a letter of support to his local garda superintendent so he could get his gun back.

Mr Carthy told him gardaí had taken in guns from all over the county for a routine check, an explanation Dr Shanley accepted at face value.

He did not know that the gun was taken following complaints by local people about threats made by Mr Carthy.

Neither did he know that Mr Carthy had recently been arrested over an incident involving the burning of the local football team’s mascot or that Mr Carthy claimed to have been assaulted while in custody.

“He told me he had the gun for seven years previously and that he shot pigeons and pheasants and that it was a hobby of his,” said Dr Shanley.

“I gave this letter of support on the basis of knowing John over a number of years, on the basis that he had been stable from a psychiatric point of view, on the basis that he was conscientious about coming to see me, which involved long distances, on the basis that he took his lithium regularly.”

Dr Shanley said he was not sure he would have made a different decision if he had known the whole story, but said he would have insisted on seeing John and asking him about the incidents so he could make a further assessment.

Chairman Mr Justice Robert Barr said the tribunal should note that it was not yet known whether Mr Carthy himself had been told the real reason why his gun was taken from him, so it could not be presumed he had deliberately deceived Dr Shanley.

Under cross-examination, however, Dr Shanley admitted: “I perhaps was extremely naive to think that the guards would have taken all the guns from the county.”

Dr Shanley wrote in his letter of October 13, 1998, that while Mr Carthy had been treated in the past for depression and elation, he was well and “fit to use a firearm” but that if the situation changed, his local GP, Dr Patrick Cullen, would be in touch.

Dr Cullen has already given evidence that he had declined Mr Carthy’s request to support him in getting the gun back and that he knew nothing of the request to Dr Shanley or the letter Dr Shanley wrote.

“I agree Dr Cullen should have received a copy of that letter,” Dr Shanley said when questioned.