Morris Tribunal - Informant should not be exposed

The Supreme Court ordered Labour Deputy Brendan Howlin yesterday to divulge the name of the person who informed him that two senior gardaí had been acting improperly in Donegal.

In the summer of 2000, Mr Howlin was informed that a detective sergeant had been planting evidence and that a number of suspects had been framed and convicted with the aid of planted stolen property.

The Morris Tribunal has uncovered a frightening web of deceit and corruption among the Donegal division of An Garda Siochána. Exposing this was a distinct public service.

Mr Howlin’s conduct in relation to the allegations was impeccable. He did not seek publicity for political gain. He could have gone on the floor of the Dáil and made allegations there that would have generated publicity.

He had no way of knowing the veracity of the serious allegations. If they were unfounded, he would have been smearing the gardaí by disclosing the matter in public.

He therefore did the responsible thing and went directly to the Minister for Justice Michael McDowell and gave him the information privately.

Mr Howlin would, however, have had absolute privilege if he had spoken out in the Dáil.

The Supreme Court would not then have the power to order him to divulge the identity of his informant.

“The decision today means that the informant will be exposed in my case,” Mr Howlin said yesterday. “I think that it is a bad day for public administration.”

He insisted that only other way open to him was to contest the Supreme Court decision in the European Court of Justice.

In the circumstances such a course would seem justified.

If people confide in good faith in a deputy about a matter of serious public importance, they should be able to rely on the confidentiality of that representative. It is an intolerable situation that the deputies should be compelled by the judiciary to divulge the names of informants.

It is wrong that an individual who provided the vital information should now be exposed, especially as the trend of public policy in recent years has been to protect whistleblowers in order to facilitate the reporting of wrongdoing.

Such protection has frequently been written into law in order to protect informants.

The Supreme Court concluded that Mr Howlin had done the right thing in bringing the information to the attention of the Minister for Justice, but the five judges went on to rule that he was not privileged in protecting the identity of his source.

Deputies are frequently given information in good faith that appears to be important but subsequently turn out to be inaccurate. Prudence dictates that they should be careful with such raw information before making it public.

It would be absurd if the floor of the Dáil or the Seanad were the only places where they could raise such information without jeopardising the identity of their informants. Yet this could be the impact of yesterday’s ruling.

Clearly the Oireachtas needs to pass legislation to protect the identities of those who are prepared to provide public representatives with important information in the national interest.