Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
Updated: 4 February, 13.38
THE TAOISEACH HAS defended making Alan Shatter aware of the terms of reference of the Commission of Investigation into Garda malpractice before the Dáil knew what they were.
During Leaders’ Questions today, Gerry Adams asked Enda Kenny if it was “normal practice” to send terms of an investigation to a backbencher before making them known to the lower house.
Fianna Fáil’s justice spokesperson Niall Collins raised the issue last night:
Shatter was also told that Justice Kevin O’Higgins was to be the sole member of the Commission before the information was presented to the Dáil or made public.
Kenny said the former justice minister had to be made of the terms as he is involved in litigation surrounding the investigation.
He also rejected Adams’ assertion that the fact letters were sent from Shatter to him and Ceann Comhairle Seán Barrett regarding the issue had to be “dragged out of [him]“.
Yesterday evening, the Taoiseach’s office published correspondence between Kenny’s private secretary and Shatter’s solicitor regarding the former justice minister’s objections to elements of the proposed inquiry into Garda malpractice.
The letters show that Shatter was made aware of the terms of reference on 21 November. last - a month before they were published by the Justice Minister Frances Fitzgerald.
The release of the correspondence came on foot of the Ceann Comhairle’s decision last week not to allow the Dáil debate the setting up of the Commission. (That decision in itself caused another, now-resolved row between Barrett and the opposition parties. More on that here.)
Ceann Comhairle withdraws comments about Fianna Fáil:
The correspondence, published in full here, dates back to September and covers the proposed terms of reference for the Commission of Investigation into allegations of malpractice in the Cavan-Monaghan Division of An Garda Síochána.
The Commission, chaired by Justice Kevin O’Higgins, has been established on foot of the findings and recommendations of a report by barrister Seán Guerin into claims made by the garda whistleblower Maurice McCabe.
Guerin’s damning report led to Shatter’s resignation as justice minister last May. However, the Fine Gael TD has since lodged a High Court action to overturn some of the Guerin report’s findings.
Now this new correspondence shows a series of exchanges between the Taoiseach’s private secretary Nick Reddy and Shatter’s solicitor Brian Gallagher of Gallagher Shatter, a law firm in which Alan Shatter is a partner, between 9 September and 17 December 2014:
In the first letter, dated 9 September last year, Gallagher writes to the Department of the Taoiseach raising concerns about the then-unpublished terms of reference for the Commission of Investigation.
Gallagher states that Shatter is “gravely concerned” that the terms of reference would include matters in the Guerin report concerning Shatter’s conduct and his High Court challenge to certain aspects of the Guerin report.
According to the letter, Shatter is “strongly of the view that the conclusions were wrongly and unconstitutionally arrived at”. The letter seeks assurance that these matters, subject of the court action, will not form part of the terms of reference.
In a response on 7 November, the Taoiseach’s private secretary Nick Reddy essentially says that the Government is of the view that the content of the Guerin report and the conduct of Seán Guerin himself cannot have any bearing on the Commission of Investigation.
“The Commission process is wholly independent, separate and distinct and is governed by Statute in all material respects,” writes Reddy.
In its response to Reddy on 17 November, Gallagher writes that Guerin’s conclusions on Shatter as “a Minister or as indeed as a politician and lawyer are irredeemably flawed”.
It says that to suggest there is no “causative connection” between the two processes – Shatter’s legal action and the Commission of Investigation – is “simply a fallacy”.
A brief response from Reddy on 21 November includes a draft of the terms of reference for the Commission of Investigation and states that the Government considered the matters set out in those terms of “significant public concern”.
A response from Gallagher on 25 November says that Reddy’s previous response “ignores” the substantive issues raised in the previous correspondence and seeks a “substantive and detailed reply”.
Reddy acknowledges the reply on 26 November and promises to “revert to you”.
But on 8 December, Gallagher writes to Reddy again to note that there has been no substantive response. Enclosed with this letter is a copy of Alan Shatter’s letter (on his own Oireachtas stationery) to the Ceann Comhairle.
It is in this three-page letter, which we first learned about in the Irish Times last Friday, Shatter says he is “sorry to have to write to you about this matter”.
He essentially asks for the removal of references to him from the Commission of Investigation’s terms of reference. If references to Shatter, in his former role as minister for justice, were not removed, the TD writes.
“It will be a direct and over encroachment and interference by Dáil Eireann in judicial proceedings that are presently before the Courts and will be a dangerous and unprecedented encroachment by the Dáil on the functions of the Courts.”
Shatter says he is happy to meet with the Ceann Comhairle to “respond to any questions you may have”.
In the final letter of the correspondence released this evening, dated 17 December, Reddy writes to Gallagher to essentially dismiss Shatter’s concerns.
The letter says that the Government does “not accept your client’s contention that the establishment” of the Commission “would constitute an unlawful or unjustifiable trespass on the current High Court proceedings” or “would interfere with the proper administration of justice”.
It adds that if the Commission is “competent enough to make arrangements to avoid a conflict” between the court proceedings and its own work.
It now remains to be seen whether Shatter will seek to challenge the establishment of the Commission of Investigation through the courts.
Additional reporting by Órla Ryan
Originally published: 3 February, 19.10
Another pointless flight on a government jet.
@v39e84kK: It’s not a pointless flight you absolute whinger. They were invited by Ukraine to visit. Every foreign dignitary that visits is a show of solidarity. To refuse the invitation would be worse.
@Seán Ó Briain: No it wouldn’t, what effect would it tangibly have? This meeting served no purpose. Ireland is already helping Ukraine and will continue to do so. This achieved nothing but wasted money and you know that.
@v39e84kK: You can imagine it now Putin on the loudspeaker in the Donbas region “the west is with us comrades! the Taoiseach came! the Tanaiste! 8 other Irish politicians! But….the Ceann Comhairle did not! onwards to protracted conflict!”
@v39e84kK: why don’t you lot ever relax and try and understand why Ireland does what we do and why we should do it.
@Paul Furey: “you lot”? Who is that exactly?
@v39e84kK: awww somebody sad they didn’t get to go on the govt jet ..? :(
@Ciaran: Yeah, that’s it Ciaran. You are a great detective. Honestly the amount of people who don’t care how the government spends their time and money is amazing.
@v39e84kK: eh Dominic Ukraine asked him to visit, how about you let the Ukrainians decide what they think is useful cause I’ve a feeling they might have a better sense of usefulness 8n their country then you do. The whinging on here is limitless sometimes
@v39e84kK: government officials need to travel abroad for diplomatic Missions. Have a day off will ya
@Sean Minihane: no they don’t. This is at least the fifth Irish politician to visit Kyiv. It’s pointless.
@v39e84kK: the whingers like you who complain about everything
Also, the EU is an economic union. I have no ill-will to that nation but why on earth are people championing that a country in absolute ruin after a war be let into an economic union of trade and free movement? That’s insanity for everyone except Ukraine, and probably not so good for them either if it does a brain-drain on the kinds of people they need to rebuild their nation.
@v39e84kK: if You were A Ukrainian would You make them comments We Have to Support Our Fellow Europeans against A Dictator
@pat seery: What does that have to do with EU membership? Oh, nothing. I see.
@v39e84kK: “…why on earth are people championing that a country in absolute ruin after a war be let into an economic union of trade and free movement?” Maybe because it would be the right thing to do?
@Earth Traveller: No. But you are entitled to your opinion. Shall we add Nigeria, Congo, Rwanda into a free trade and free movement union too? Turkey is too corrupt for the EU but Ukraine after a war is a good member state? No. It’s not. Ukraine is very corrupt, that’s well documented. Educate yourself. The place had a coup less than a decade ago essentially.
@v39e84kK: you clearly know nothing about Ukraine then do u. Economically it is a very string country
@Peter Roche: is it yeah? So how was it’s EU application going in the 20+ since it became a sovereign state? Oh it wasnt. Will it be economically strong after the war? No.
I really don’t know how Volodymyr Zelenskyy keeps going. He must be physically and mentally exhausted.
@Fr. Fintan Stack: no worries for that, US keeps sending good stuff. He is skiing every day the white powder in his office ! The best is when he is at the office on Saturday night for his TikTok party ! This is priceless..
Yemen, Syria, Libya and Palestine next.. Nah don’t thinks..
Big unit.
I hope Zelinsky asks him why we haven’t kicked out the Russian ambassador and his cadre of staff.
Most people who live here would like to see them booted out.
@Davey Ohanlon: nope because, what does that achieve for the Irish in Russia, we should be at the front of peace talks instead of in the line throw milltary aid into this mess
@Ken Red: What makes you think we would have any say in peace talks?
@Ken Red:
That’s assuming Putin wants peace and it’s also assuming that the Ukrainians and others are willing to forgo war crimes charges against Putin and his army.
Do you honestly think Putin would settle for peace without coming away without any land gains?…not a hope in hell.
The sanctions, asset seizures of his pals, loss of Russian soldiers lives, their economy, their military proven to be inept and vulnerable to western weapons.
He literally can’t afford to strike a peace deal and come away with nothing.
A peace deal with Putin will basically be a form of appeasment and no deterrent not to do the same again.
Game of Thrones expo photo Op.
Why
have your say