Mick Clifford: Serious questions remain over garda sting operation before death of Evan Fitzgerald
Evan Fitzgerald was described as a 'vulnerable young man' who was obsessed with guns. Picture: Family handout/An Garda Síochána/PA
Last Tuesday, two young men pleaded guilty to possession of a rifle, a semi-automatic pistol, and ammunition. These are serious charges. Possession of illegal firearms in this country is most often associated with organised crime.
Shane Kinsella, from Tynock, Kiltergan, and Daniel Quinn Burke, of Allendale Lawn, both in Wicklow, know nothing of organised crime, unless they have consumed it on Netflix. At Naas Circuit Court, the pair, who are both 22, each received three-year prison sentences, fully suspended for five years.
The plea means that no trial took place, which is regrettable in one sense because what happened to the two young men was bizarre and disturbing, and should be aired in the public interest in some forum.
They were caught in possession of the weapons while travelling in a car in Kildare on March 2, 2024. Armed gardaí intercepted the vehicle, reportedly smashed in a windscreen as if the men were hardened terrorists, and dragged them out. The pair were accompanied by a third person, their friend Evan Fitzgerald.
An undercover “sting” operation had been conducted when Evan Fitzgerald was identified looking for guns on the dark web. Fitzgerald, described as a “vulnerable young man”, was obsessed with guns. Gardaí posing as weapons dealers had met him to arrange the purchase and met him again to hand over the weapons shortly before colleagues intercepted the three men.
The weapons had been disabled, so it’s difficult to understand why their arrest was effected as if they were dangerous criminals en route to rob, kill, or maim. There was never any suggestion that Fitzgerald or his friends had any intention to use the weapons to engage in criminal activity.
It’s also difficult to understand why an entirely routine inquiry from the judge at the arraignment was answered in a factually inaccurate manner.
After initially objecting to bail, the prosecuting garda subsequently consented under conditions. It is unclear why the initial objections were made, as if these young men could potentially be a danger to public safety or pose a flight risk. In any event, bail was granted. One of the conditions was that they don’t contact each other.
Fifteen months later, on June 1, 2025, Evan Fitzgerald entered the Fairgreen Shopping Centre in Carlow town. He was carrying a shotgun which he had stolen from a neighbour. He discharged the shotgun, and a few seconds later discharged it again, this time to shoot himself. He died instantly.
It is unknown what toll the whole affair, including the extended period awaiting trial on serious charges, had on him. It is unknown whether being separated from his two friends during this period increased his vulnerability or isolation.
“They were prohibited from communicating with each other for a whole year, and in that dark, despairing year, Evan Fitzgerald decided to take his own life by shooting himself with a neighbour’s shotgun,” Michael McDowell told the Seanad last year.
In the immediate aftermath of the incident, there was a fear that American-style gun violence or Islamic terrorism had arrived on these shores. The spinning began. A story was leaked to the media that gardaí had objected to Fitzgerald’s bail in March 2025.
This seems designed to infer that gardaí knew this young man was a danger, but the judge refused to listen to their concerns and granted bail.
The story prompted Judge Zaidan to retrieve the audio recording record from his court of 15 months earlier. He then publicly set the record straight that gardaí had consented to bail.
Read More
Word got into the media that Fitzgerald had left a document, a manifesto, in a similar manner to those abroad who had engaged in mass shootings before turning a gun on themselves. Labour TD Alan Kelly referred to this later in the Dáil. “There were reports of a manifesto being present,” he said. “I understand there was no manifesto. Why was that put out there?”
One obvious answer to Kelly’s rhetorical question could be that it was designed to blacken the deceased man’s name in an effort to ensure there was no blowback on the element of An Garda Síochána which had engaged in the sting operation and everything that flowed from it.
Within weeks of the incident, the media began reporting some details of the operation. In Leinster House, Kelly and McDowell raised the issue in their respective parliamentary chambers, but there was little take-up.
At an Oireachtas committee hearing, then Garda Commissioner Drew Harris defended the use of “controlled delivery” of weapons in a sting operation. “We use it for both organised crime and for our terrorist defence,” he stated.
The three young men intercepted by the crack garda team were neither criminals nor terrorists. And, just to emphasise, there was never any suggestion from Gardaí that they were acquiring the guns for the purpose of committing crime.
Why, as McDowell later suggested, had diversion not been used? Why wasn’t Mr Fitzgerald given a metaphorical clip around the ear, a warning, or parental interception effected? Why was it necessary to set up an operation as if this were a staged episode of a cops-and-robbers TV drama? And why was there an attempt to run for the hills and hide once Evan Fitzgerald cracked under whatever pressure he was experiencing and took his own life in the manner he did?
It would have been an injustice if his two friends had received a prison sentence this week. Presumably they were given sound legal advice that jail was highly unlikely under the circumstances if they pleaded guilty. They are entitled to attempt to put this dark and disturbing episode behind them and move on with their lives. No such avenue to closure is available to Evan Fitzgerald’s family. They are left with questions and a finality from which there is no coming back.
Beyond that, a failure to properly examine what exactly occurred does no favours to An Garda Síochána.
The propensity to divert, distract from, or sweep under the nearest carpet misadventures, mistakes, and catastrophes is ingrained in many areas of the State apparatus.
In the police force, where huge power resides, this can often lead to terrible and even fatal outcomes.
There are huge questions to be answered in relation to this case. None of this is to lay the blame at any individual’s door, but to simply find out what went wrong, because that will minimise the chances of it reoccurring.
As of now, in the absence of any examination through a trial, or investigation by an outside agency, the standard refrain applies. Nothing to see here, now move along, stand back and let history be repeated ad nauseam.
CONNECT WITH US TODAY
Be the first to know the latest news and updates
