Rossiter inquiry - Gardaí have questions to answer

THE statutory inquiry conducted by senior counsel Hugh Hartnett into the death of 14-year-old Brian Rossiter in a cell at Clonmel Garda station on September 11, 2002, has concluded that there was no evidence he was assaulted while he was in the station, but that he was unlawfully detained by gardaí.

This might rightly be described as another mess.

A young boy is dead and more than five years later inquiries have not progressed beyond the investigative stage. And the actual investigation conducted by the gardaí does not reflect well on the force.

First of all, it should not be overlooked that a 14-year-old boy should not have been drinking alcohol. That was probably a contributory factor in the sequence of events, and it highlights the dangerous consequences of a practice that society is not taking seriously enough.

The case was complicated by contradictory evidence and the lack of a proper garda investigation. The report concluded there was no indication of “any real investigation in relation to the possibility of Brian Rossiter having been assaulted or having received his fatal injury while in custody”.

Two witnesses contended the boy was assaulted by gardaí, but Mr Hartnett concludes that the evidence of one of those witnesses was “entirely false” as it had “glaring inconsistencies” and was “thoroughly unreliable and lacking in credibility.” The other witness was described as “unclear and, at times, contradictory”.

Brian Rossiter had been in a fight before he was brought to the garda station and had also been in another fight the previous day. Mr Hartnett did not accept the allegations of maltreatment by gardaí. He also noted there was no medical evidence that the fatal injury occurred while the boy was in custody, but the report still concluded that it was “statistically more likely” to have occurred during that period.

Mr Hartnett also concluded the arrest of Brian Rossiter was lawful, but his subsequent detention was unlawful, notwithstanding the suggestion by the boy’s father that “a night in custody might do his son no harm”. The gardaí thereby assumed a particular responsibility in this case.

Although the report is thorough, only a 70-page summary could be published, because of the danger of libel litigation. A number of gardaí are apparently heavily criticised, and this could lead to further action. An assistant commissioner has been detailed to examine the full report with a view to determining whether disciplinary or criminal issues arise.

The allegations against the gardaí highlight their need to take precautions to protect their own reputations. The force relies heavily on public confidence and co-operation, so there should be no room for any suspicion of brutal behaviour by gardaí in the station.

With the modern technology available, all proceedings in the station involving people in custody should be continuously recorded. Conscientious gardaí would have nothing to fear, and it would protect the force against vexatious allegations.