Boylan case shows Garda use of informants shrouded in darkness

It’s a bit like the closet with the proverbial skeletons. It has creaked open, but only slightly, just enough for a few limbs to spill out. Inside is still shrouded in darkness.

That’s the insight we have been given into a shadowy — but necessary — aspect of policing: the use of informants and the thin line between criminality and order their handlers must walk.

It’s an area that is, by its very nature, an ethical, operational and legal minefield.

The Garda Síochána Ombudsman Commission (GSOC) spent four years examining it, stemming from a specific investigation into alleged collusion between members of an elite Garda unit and a convicted drug trafficker Kieran Boylan.

The investigation examined the relationship between the unit and the informant, whether it was part of the official system or “off book”, whether Boylan was allowed to conduct his own operations unhindered and what senior management knew about it.

Unfortunately — and this is a gaping hole in the information publicly released on Thursday — we are not much the wiser on answers to these questions.

GSOC gave a brief outline of general deficiencies in informant handling in the Garda unit: the absence of training, lack of awareness of the official informant system, unnecessary risks in the handling of informants and a lack of record keeping. It also said there was a “culture of non-adherence” by multiple Garda units.

It expressed “grave concerns” the deficiencies in the old ISMS informant-handing system had not all been remedied in the new CHIS system.

In a separate, special report to the justice minister, the watchdog called for reform and adherence to the CHIS system and for a new level of “intrusive” oversight.

A senior garda familiar with CHIS told the Irish Examiner the system was “as good a system as you are going to get”. He said handlers were highly trained and strictly supervised.

He said that while many people were put forward as potential informants, “very few” were chosen. He said they were subject to reliability and threat assessments and their case was constantly reviewed.

“You have to realise these are the most manipulative, most devious and most dangerous of people. It is extremely hard work to handle them. People must remember many, many murders have been prevented this way, many drug and firearms shipments intercepted.”

In the special report, GSOC touched on the issue of informants being run off book. It didn’t rule out the need for this, but said guidance should be given to gardaí using “non-registered informants”.

There has been at least one high-profile case in the courts in recent times where gardaí used an informant outside the CHIS system.

The Garda source said that these were legacy cases and all informants were run through CHIS. He said occasional informants — such as someone who rings once a year — may not be registered and that new or potential informants go through a “bedding in” process before being registered. He pointed out that a former High Court judge did oversee the system and that he was satisfied with Garda compliance with it.

The GSOC report raised specific concerns about “participating informants” — those who are active criminals. The ombudsman said the absence of clear guidance on this area — both from Garda HQ and the DPP — created “significant risks”. It warned: “It is not possible to effectively manage and place parameters upon the extent to which such individuals are authorised to participate in criminality.”

How does society set these parameters? Who sets them? Is legislation needed? Who oversees the system and how much power should they have?

Experienced detectives have to be our guide, as they know the reality on the ground.

On the other hand, there may be a need for legislation to govern the operation of CHIS and informants.

And, yes, there must be oversight, people with the key to the proverbial closet.

It’s a matter of balance, balance that obviously has not been yet struck.