Claims suggest worse-than-imagined ‘whistleblower reprisal’
The Morris tribunal was explicit about the whole concept of what is known as “whistleblowing”. Morris was set up to examine widespread Garda corruption in Donegal during the 1990s.
Judge Frederick Morris concluded in 2006 that much of what had occurred might have been avoided if the concerns of junior officers had been acted on at an early stage. He saw this failure as key to the mayhem that followed in elements of the force in Donegal.
“It should be possible for any serving member of An Garda Síochána to speak in confidence — and without fear of adverse consequences — with a designated officer in Garda headquarters should they have concerns about misconduct,” he stated.
That observation was made 10 years ago. Time has shown that Morris’s confidence in whistleblowers receiving a sympathetic or even neutral hearing was entirely misplaced.
Today’s revelations in the Irish Examiner about two protected disclosures alleging the maltreatment of a whistleblower suggests that little has changed.
The disclosures allege there was a concerted campaign among senior management in the force to destroy the character of a whistleblower. There were different strands to the alleged campaign, including the dissemination of text messages containing falsehoods about the officer in question, briefing of elements of the media, and even the creation of an intelligence file on the officer.
If these claims are ultimately substantiated — and one of those making the disclosure has admitted his role in the campaign — then questions arise as to how the force can ever be reformed.
As long as internal complaints of malpractice are dealt with as a threat, and the bearer of such complaints considered to be merely disloyal, there is little prospect of reforming the negative aspects of Garda culture.
Those aspects are writ large in a series of reports from the garda inspectorate and various tribunals and inquiries. Principally, the instinct to cover up malpractice rather than address it ensures it will occur again and again. Such a pattern has been obvious since the 1970s, with the occasional — and sometimes prolonged — explosion of controversy about the force’s work.
Yet little appears to have changed. Following the resignations of former commissioner Martin Callinan and former justice minister Alan Shatter, an impression was put out that the slate was to be wiped clean. In June 2014, soon after their departures, then acting commissioner Nóirín O’Sullivan admitted that in the past An Garda Síochána had “rejected well-meaning advice” too often, adding that “listening hasn’t always been a priority”. She also noted: “At times, if we’d concentrated more on the message and less on the messenger, we’d have walked into fewer walls”.
All the evidence is that some within the force continue to concentrate more on the messenger, and despite the positive and courageous work of so many officers, the force continues to walk into walls.
Since Ms O’Sullivan made that statement, two “crucial friends”, as she described whistleblowers, have experienced repeated harassment. The plight of Nick Keogh and Keith Harrison has been examined in the media and Dáil. In both cases, the officers in question don’t appear to place any great store on the commissioner’s reassurance.
Last May it emerged that the commissioner’s counsel at the O’Higgins tribunal had indicated he had instructions to test the motivation and credibility of Sergeant Maurice McCabe, another whistleblower who had revealed malpractice.
O’Higgins was told there would be evidence that McCabe was motivated by malice, but this evidence was not proffered once McCabe produced a tape recording of a meeting where he was supposed to have expressed such malice.
Keogh, Harrison, and McCabe appear not to have benefited from the bright, new shiny era that Ms O’Sullivan claimed to be ushering in. And these are only the cases that have been placed in the public domain.
Interestingly, the O’Higgins inquiry vindicated McCabe and endorsed practically all his claims of malpractice.
On Sunday, it was reported that Keogh’s claims of collusion between a garda and a drug dealer in the midlands have been substantiated. Harrison’s claims are still under investigation, despite having been made two years ago. GSOC, which is investigating the claims, has blamed lack of co-operation in the force for the delay.
Processes to deal with whistle-blowers within the force have been put in place since Callinan’s departure. In theory, the protected disclosure legislation offers more protection than was the case under the previous “confidential recipient” system brought in after the Morris report in 2006.
Last June, a new manager was appointed in Garda HQ to specifically receive whistleblower complaints. In theory, this was another step in the right direction. Theory, however, is all well and good but without a cultural change it represents nothing more than a redundant box-ticking exercise.
That’s the background against which today’s Irish Examiner story must be viewed. If a sustained campaign against a whistleblower was, as alleged, perpetrated by senior management, then the extent of “whistleblower reprisal” is much worse than ever imagined.
In such an environment, it is legitimate to ask whether there is any prospect of change without the installation of outside personnel at the very top of the force?
CONNECT WITH US TODAY
Be the first to know the latest news and updates
