Gardaí are not always a ‘force’ for good

TO make a hames of one smear was unfortunate, to make a hames of two was careless.

Twice in the last nine days, unofficial, and potentially damaging, information from the gardaí was inaccurate. In both cases, the information was used as a political tool. Wielding the power, pulling the political strings, were members of An Garda Síochána. That is not healthy for any society that values democratic norms.

There are three bodies in the State that have access to the details of the lives of citizens. The Revenue Commissioners have sight of people’s tax affairs, and, with it, much detail on the finances of the bulk of the populace.

By and large, Revenue is guarded in its duties to citizens. It is rare for information about an individual to leak out. Quite obviously, a culture exists in Revenue in which their duties, in this regard, are taken extremely seriously.

The Department of Social Protection is in possession of copious amounts of personal detail of citizens. The department, and its employees, have access to detail on any citizen drawing State benefit, including child benefit.

The record of the department, in properly guarding the information, is not great. Just last week, the Data Protection Commissioner referenced concern over details leaking from the department.

About seven years ago, in researching a case on how private investigators obtain information, I was stunned at the volume and detail of information they could glean from the department’s files.

There have been cases where employees have accepted money for information, but there has also been casual access, on the basis of a request from a friend or acquaintance, or just for prurience. Employees have been nabbed for disseminating information, so while there is not a culture of total respect, there is some deterrent to abusing access.

It’s all a different ball-game in the gardaí. That agency possesses highly sensitive information, which, as seen in recent days, can be used as a tool. This applies to the manner in which the information is released, the spin put on it, and the timing.

The information about Mick Wallace’s encounter with gardaí, over a mobile phone, was particularly instructive. A casual encounter, across the open windows of two vehicles more than a year ago, found its way, first, to the ear of the Garda Commissioner, Martin Callinan.

Callinan, according to Justice Minister Alan Shatter, passed a version of the encounter onto him in the course of a briefing about the penalty-points controversy. Shatter’s contention that this was discussed in the context of garda discretion lacks all credibility. Shatter is a solicitor of 30-plus years. He knows, as do most adults, that gardaí regularly exercise discretion in the interests of natural justice.

Shatter didn’t need to be shown an example, as if he was a greenhorn. He had to know he was being handed a political tool, to use as he saw fit.

And so he did, on RTÉ’s Prime Time, where he also got his facts wrong. Wallace wasn’t stopped, as Shatter had inferred, and there was no question of a caution being issued. Neither was there any written record of the affair.

So where did the wires get crossed? What exact detail, of an encounter between a member of the force and a private citizen, passed between commissioner and minister?

Is their regard for the privacy of citizens so casual that both had their facts wrong? Or did somebody in the chain spin the facts to cast Wallace in as poor a light as possible?

Shatter’s encounter with members of the force, as relayed by Mattie McGrath in the Dáil last Thursday, also raises questions.

Again, the facts of the encounter, details of which must have originated in the gardaí, appear to be wrong. The date was definitely wrong, with Mattie suggesting it was after the last general election, but before Shatter’s formal appointment as minister for justice, a timing that would have given the incident far greater significance. It was, in fact, at least two years earlier. By Shatter’s account, he didn’t refuse to give a sample, but was unable to do so because of his asthma.

The timing of the issuing of McGrath’s allegations (framed as questions) is also interesting.

The incident dates from four years ago. Unless Mattie was sitting on it all that time, somebody passed it onto him in recent days, to cause the maximum damage to Shatter. And, again, the details were inaccurate, by accident or design, portraying the incident as far worse than it was.

Just as elements of the force are peeved with Wallace for his role in highlighting the penalty-points issue, so, too, are some at Shatter for his obnoxious demeanour in a time of austerity.

Clare Daly is another who has had a prominent role in the penalty-points revelations.

Her arrest, last February, over suspected drink-driving, and her delivery to the local garda station in handcuffs, found its way into the public domain in a matter of hours.

While it was always likely that the encounter would receive publicity, the swiftness of the leak ensured that a garda version got out before Daly could issue a statement. In the world of spin, you strike first, because that blow tends to have the most lasting impact. As it was to turn out, Daly was not over the drink-driving limit, and she lodged a complaint to the garda ombudsman commission.

On Thursday, it emerged that while members of the force were quick to release information about the Daly incident to the media, others have been highly reluctant to act with the same speed in co-operating with the ombudsman’s investigation of same.

The Irish Examiner reported yesterday that a request for information on the incident was resisted on the basis that it “wasn’t relevant”, and was only supplied after a long delay.

The Daly case is just one of many that the ombudsman has cited as examples of a slow, and reluctant, flow of information from the force to the commission in the course of investigations.

Is it that the force just freezes when it’s not in control of the flow and detail of information? Does this also account for the appalling treatment, from on high, of the whistleblowers who brought the penalty-points issue into the public domain?

Personally, I have encountered officers who have been extremely helpful and generous with their time and information, while careful not to reveal details about any individuals. Culturally, however, right to the top, the gardaí’s collective attitude to information appears to retain all the instincts of a colonial force.

Secrecy, control of flow, and use for political advantage are all arrows in the quiver of such a force, and we’re long past the point, in this country, where this is either desirable or appropriate. But that’s the way it remains, largely because many in the body politic have no will to see it change.