Speech shows that Shatter doesn’t have reverse gear

Alan Shatter has said that 11 out of 12 cases in a dossier of whistleblower claims are ‘groundless’ on the basis that alleged Garda malpractice had been investigated by the gardaí. But how thorough were these investigations, asks Michael Clifford.

ALAN Shatter put a cork on a bottle of smoke yesterday if you believe that gardaí properly investigate gardaí, without fear or favour.

There’s nothing more to see here. All the complaints of malpractice have been dealt with. The whistleblower, Sergeant Maurice McCabe, must have a flea in his ear. Move along now. Go dance on somebody else’s career.

The minister for justice kicked off a day’s statements on controversies surrounding the gardaí with a stirring defence of his conduct in office. He assiduously laid out how he had followed the law at every step, principally the Garda Síochána Act 2005. He pointedly refused to apologise for thrashing the characters of Sgt McCabe and his former colleague John Wilson under privilege in the Dáil. This guy doesn’t have a reverse gear.

Prior to yesterday, Mr Shatter was under serious pressure on two aspects in particular of this affair. Firstly, he had sight of a dossier of cases of alleged malpractice two years ago and did nothing about it. Secondly, as part of a wider campaign to discredit the two whistleblowers, he accused both in the Dáil of failing to cooperate with the Garda investigation into abuses of the penalty points system, an inquiry initiated on foot of complains from the two men.

He dealt with the first matter by, depending on your point of view, either observing, or hiding behind, the law. His speech on this went as follows:

“On January 23, 2012, I received a report from the then Garda confidential recipient, Mr Oliver Connolly, attaching a letter which had been anonymised but which turned out to be from Sergeant McCabe and which included 12 allegations against a named superintendent (for either direct wrongdoing or not dealing properly with wrongdoing), a complaint against the assistant commissioner for the alleged assault and false imprisonment, and a complaint against the Garda commissioner for permitting the named superintendent to be on a panel for promotion to chief superintendent in circumstances where the Garda commissioner knew, or ought to have known of, the alleged wrongdoing of the superintendent.”

Mr Shatter passed the file onto the Garda commissioner who returned it with a response in six days. Eleven of the allegations were described as “groundless”, as they had already been investigated. The twelfth was also explained.

There was nothing more to see here. Despite the harrowing detail of some of the cases, Mr Shatter felt confident that the commissioner could properly investigate the commissioner. The minster was happy to have the head of the gardaí investigate Garda conduct, even if an adverse result might reflect badly on the force as a whole, or some senior officers. In this, Shatter was merely observing the law. His lack of curiosity about how a whole slew of such cases could arise in one relatively small station is in itself curious. Was he influenced in his thinking by the commissioner? Did somebody suggest to him that perhaps this whistleblower was a crank to be ignored? One way of the other, Mr Shatter followed the letter of the law and handed the affair over to the commissioner.

If the minister wants an example of how gardaí investigate gardaí he need look no further than another complaint made by Sgt McCabe — abuse of the penalty points system.

In November 2012, Mr Shatter directed an internal Garda investigation on the matter. It was headed up by Assistant Commissioner John O’Mahony. The investigation found a few minor kinks in the system. Nothing really to see here. Six months later, accountants in the Comptroller and Auditor General’s office managed to find far more than the team of high-ranking officers who carried out the O’Mahony investigation. The bean counters turned out to be better cops than the pros. Or maybe the pros were not eager to find too much. The O’Mahony investigation also failed to contact the two whistleblowers for interview. If they had been interviewed, the inquiry would be in official possession of information pointing to widespread abuse. There would then have been an obligation to act on this information, and a radically different report would have emerged.

Did it suit the investigators not to have this information? Does the O’Mahony report reflect a general theme when gardaí investigate gardaí — don’t look in those dark corners where you might find more than you want? If the same approach was taken to investigating the dossier of cases compiled by Sgt McCabe, then there is a major problem.

Mr Shatter yesterday said that 11 out of the 12 cases in the dossier were “groundless” on the basis that alleged Garda malpractice had been investigated by the gardaí. How thorough were these investigations? As thorough as the O’Mahony report into penalty points?

THE other matter that Mr Shatter attempted to deal with yesterday was his allegation under privilege that the two whistleblowers “did not co-operate” with the O’Mahony inquiry. This allegation, made on October 1, effectively thrashed the reputations of the two men. It was in line with the general attitude that Mr Shatter and the commissioner have displayed towards the whistleblowers. Mr Shatter refused to withdraw or apologise for the remarks yesterday. He maintains the two men were obliged to contact the inquiry. Both men claim they had expected to be contacted by the inquiry — as would be standard procedure in matters like this — and were dismayed when no call came.

“Clearly there is a difference of views and perceptions between An Garda Síochána and Sgt McCabe with regard to this issue,” said Mr Shatter yesterday. Well, no. Nobody in the force has expressly suggested that the whistleblowers didn’t cooperate. Assistant Commissioner John O’Mahony, who conducted the inquiry, has never suggested this. The main difference is between Mr Shatter, who believes the men should have pro-activitely contacted the inquiry, and the whistleblowers, who believed the inquiry would, in the normal manner, contact them.

Even allowing for Mr Shatter’s Jesuitical interpretation of events, he could have defused the whole issue by simply withdrawing his allegation on the basis of a misunderstanding. He chose not to. His actions suggest he believes that his election to parliament entitles him to attack the character of a garda with impunity. At the outset of his speech he lectured: “As minister I cannot opt to respect the rights of one person and ignore the rights of others.”

Quite obviously, in this instance, that his precisely what he has done.