Sophie Toscan du Plantier: Questions remain but little chance of answers
On the face of it, there is a case for some form of judicial inquiry into the events around the investigation of the murder of Sophie Tuscon du Plantier, and all that flowed from it.
Despite the verdict in Ian Bailey’s High Court action last Monday, there remains a question over his treatment at the hands of a number of state agencies, including the gardaí, the attorney general, and more than one minister for justice.
A jury in the High Court ruled that Bailey’s rights were not abused with regard to two specific issues — whether a number of gardaí conspired to induce statements from a witness, Marie Farrell, and whether they conspired to have that witness falsely allege that Bailey intimidated her.
On these matters, the jury took just over two hours to reach a decision. And on the basis of the evidence heard, it would be difficult to dispute that decision.
There were other issues that were ruled to be outside the jury’s remit. Much of the allegations about garda conduct in the aftermath of the December 1996 murder were thrown out, on the grounds of statute of limitations, meaning that they occurred more than six years before Bailey launched his actions.
A public inquiry, or a commission of inquiry, could examine those allegations. It could look at the serious allegation that the local state solicitor was asked to intervene with the then minster for justice to put pressure on the DPP to prosecute Bailey.
There would be merit in examining the reliance by the gardaí on Farrell, especially when it became obvious from early on that she was not very reliable.
It could parse the contents of the 44 page scathing assessment of the investigation by a DPP official in 2001, which was also deemed to be inadmissible in Bailey’s action.
There are other areas also.
In 2003, Bailey brought a libel action against seven newspapers.
There have been allegations that the gardaí assisted the newspapers in preparing the case, not least by persuading Farrell to give evidence on behalf of the newspapers.
Then there is the actions of other agencies of the state. When the French authorities sought to have Bailey extradited on a European Arrest Warrant, the Government fell over themselves to assist. This, despite the fact the warrant sought to extradite a suspect for questioning to a jurisdiction other than the one in which a crime was committed, and doing so after the prosecuting authorities here had repeatedly stated he had no case to answer.
This was done at a time when Bailey had already initiated an action against the State.
Was there not a conflict of interest here? If Bailey was extradited, his legal action would have been halted.
If Bailey had been, for instance, a well connected individual, or even an Irish citizen, would the Government have been as eager?
The High Court did rule in favour of the extradition, but the Supreme Court was unequivocal in overturning that ruling.
As supreme court judge, Adrian Hardiman said in his judgement: “Mr Bailey has been very thoroughly investigated in Ireland in connection with the death of Madame du Plantier. There was certainly, as will be seen, no lack of enthusiasm to prosecute him if the facts suggested that there was evidence against him.
“He has been subjected to arrest and detention for the purpose of questioning. He has voluntarily provided, at the request of the gardaí, forensic samples which have failed to yield incriminating evidence. The fruit of the investigation have been considered not once, but several times by the DPP who has concluded and reiterated that there is no evidence to warrant a prosecution against him.”
Equally, the decision to welcome into this jurisdiction French detectives to re-investigate the crime was bizarre. Would the French have done the same if this country sent gardaí over there, with the accompanying inference that the native cops weren’t up to the job?
In the aftermath of Monday’s ruling, a lawyer for the Du Plantier family has indicated the investigation in France should finish soon, with the prospect of Bailey possibly being tried in absentia.
All of these issues are worthy of independent examination, but will it ever happen?
Apart from the 2001 DPP review of the investigation, there has also a number of other reports complied. In 2002, the McNally internal garda review combed over the initial investigation.
In 2007, the McAndrew report, under assistant commission Ray McAndrew, went over it again. That investigation came about following Farrell setting off on the road to her apparent Damascus, by claiming she had been intimidated by the gardaí rather than Bailey, and that she had been induced to finger the suspect. The jury didn’t believe her.
Neither the McAndrew nor McNally report has ever been published.
Last Monday saw the end of a 64-day court hearing which raked over much of the ground again, although the adjudication on what was heard in evidence was ultimately narrowed considerably.
Yet, despite all of that, there is still no clear picture on whether or not the State and its agencies targeted Bailey over nearly two decades. That, of itself, it could be argued, is certainly worthy of some form of inquiry.
However, it might equally be argued that the time for such an inquiry has passed, and what would be achieved by initiating one.
Bailey has had his day in court. Any lessons to be learned have already been absorbed into reforms, particularly the setting up of the garda ombudsman, GSOC, and the garda inspectorate. On the other hand, a number of commissions of inquiry have been set up in recent years for the sole purpose of putting straight the historic records, with little else to be gained.
Instead of any commission of inquiry, it is now likely that the last word on this affair will be the current investigation into the case by GSOC, which is likely to report in the summer.
So there won’t be an inquiry, mainly because the body politic as a whole has no stomach for one, and there is practically no pressure for one from any quarter.
There is one course that the Government should be obliged to follow at this late stage. Co-operation with the French inquiry was suspended during Bailey’s High Court action. That co- operation should be terminated now.
While the frustration felt by Ms Du Plantier’s family is totally understandable, the integrity of the criminal justice system in this country should not be further compromised than it already appears to have been in this long running, tragic, saga.
CONNECT WITH US TODAY
Be the first to know the latest news and updates
