I’LL tell you something, Maurice — and this is just personal advice to
you — if Shatter thinks you’re screwing him, you’re finished.” So went a line
read into the record of the Dáil last Wednesday by Fianna Fáil leader, Micheál
Martin.
Maurice McCabe, garda whistleblower. Photo: Gareth
Chaney Collins
The line was taken from what Martin said was the transcript of a conversation between garda whistleblower Maurice McCabe, and a Mr Oliver Connolly, who was appointed to receive information from garda whistleblowers. Connolly is the holder of the office known as the ‘confidential recipient’.
This
office was set up in the wake of the Morris Tribunal into garda corruption in
Donegal. It was designed to be a route through which officers who had concerns
about malpractice or corruption in the force could make their complaints,
secure in the knowledge that their identity would be protected. Connolly was
appointed by Shatter in 2011. In a previous election campaign, Connolly
contributed €1,000 to Shatter’s campaign fund.
Enda
Kenny has ordered an investigation into the transcript. Three TDs have now
related lines under privilege from what they say is the transcript. Mick Wallace
did so on February 5, with Fianna Fáil’s Niall Collins adding to that last
Tuesday, followed by Martin.
The
veracity or otherwise of the transcript has yet to be established. But the line
above is typical of what has been revealed. Wallace related another line of
similar character, alleging that it was also spoken by Connolly. “If Shatter
thinks ‘here’s this guy again, trying another route, trying to put on
pressure’, he’ll go after you“.
Wallace
added his own lines: “He’ll go after you? Our minister for justice? What is
going on?”
Last
Tuesday, when faced with Collins contribution, Shatter told the Dáil he never
threatened anybody. However, if the transcript is a true and accurate account
of the alleged conversation, what it does reveal is that Shatter’s acquaintance
was offering an opinion of how Shatter would react in a particular situation.
Irrespective
of what Connolly may or may not have said, it’s worth examining how Shatter
conducted himself in relation to the whistleblower.
The
conversation between McCabe and Connolly is alleged to have taken place on
February 9, 2012. Later that year, McCabe attempted to bring abuses in the
penalty points system to the attention of the minister for justice and the
Taoiseach. He had no luck.
Then
he approached a number of independent TDs, as he was legally entitled —
arguably obliged — to do. They publicised the complaints, and, under pressure,
Shatter ordered an internal garda inquiry in November 2012.
From
that moment on Shatter gave little or no solace to McCabe the whistleblower,
who was putting his career on the line.
In
December 2012, Shatter received an interim report on the investigation into the
whistleblowers’ allegations. (McCabe’s former colleague John Wilson had also
complained). Shatter inferred it all could be a ball of smoke. He made
reference to cases such as “a young child being taken on an emergency basis (to
hospital)”. At the time such excuses were being widely for cancelling penalty
points. Since the controversy blew up, the health of the nation’s children has
improved immeasurably.
On
publication of the O’Mahoney internal garda report, that largely vindicated
operation of the penalty points system, Shatter had another go at McCabe and
Wilson.
“Whistleblowers
also have responsibilities. Their concerns must be real and genuine, and based
on evidence rather than conjecture, especially when the allegations made are of
widespread criminality in the authority responsible for enforcing the law and
are therefore such as to be likely to undermine trust in and respect for that
authority. They should also be mindful of the rights of others.”
The
publication of a report into the same issue by the Comptroller and Auditor
General in September last year to a large extent disputed the O’Mahoney report
and substantiated the whistleblowers’ allegations. Yet Shatter has never
revised his apparent appraisal of the character and motives of the
whistleblowers.
Just
before the O’Mahoney report was published, McCabe wrote to Mr Kenny, pointing
out that he hadn’t even been interviewed by O’Mahoney’s team: “I have serious
concerns regarding not being contacted or interviewed regarding my
allegations,” the sergeant wrote to Enda Kenny.
“It
would appear that the investigation is complete and if this is the case it’s a
shocking development. One would have imagined that I would be one of the first
to be interviewed.”
Kenny’s
office passed the letter onto Shatter, who responded on April 30: “The conduct
of the investigation is an operational matter for the Garda authorities. It
would not, therefore, be appropriate for me to comment on whether Sgt McCabe
was contacted or interviewed in the course of the investigation.”
Yet,
on October 1, Shatter told the Dáil that the whistleblowers “did not co-operate
with the garda investigation that took place”. He was aware that McCabe was
highly agitated that he hadn’t been contacted by the investigation team, yet
here he was alleging that McCabe hadn’t co-operated. If Shatter wasn’t “going
after” the whistleblower, he was doing a great impression of same, and
misleading the Dáil into the bargain.
It
didn’t stop there. When McCabe, in frustration, brought his complaints to the
Public Accounts Committee, Shatter moved to try and stop the sergeant giving
evidence to the committee. Three days before McCabe’s scheduled appearance,
Shatter announced that the Garda Ombudsman Commission would now be
investigating the penalty points issue. The ruse didn’t work and McCabe was
invited in to give his evidence in private.
Back
in June 2011, when he was appointing Connolly to the office of confidential
recipient, Shatter pledged his fidelity to the concept of whistleblowing.
“Any
member or civilian employee of An Garda Síochána who wishes to report in
confidence about corruption and malpractice can be assured that any such report
will be taken seriously and extensive protection will be given to him or her.”
How
does that sit with the minister’s barely concealed contempt for whistleblowers
over the last year? Again, it must be emphasised that the transcript read into
the Dáil has not been verified. It may not be an account of a conversation
between Oliver Connolly and Maurice McCabe. But one way or the other, there is
no doubt but that the minister for justice did precious little to protect or
defend a whistleblower in the force, whose allegations have in time been shown
to have a large degree of substance.
The
whole affair has eerie echoes with the controversy between Shatter and GSOC.
Whenever GSOC came into conflict with senior garda management, Shatter came
down on the latter’s side. When the whistleblower’s allegations quite obviously
discommoded senior garda management, Shatter also made plain whose side he was
on.
That
approach by a minister would have been standard fare in the middle decades of
the last century. Since then, notions of democratic norms, and civil and human
rights, have greatly evolved, particularly in relation to policing. We are all
supposed to have moved on. Some, quite obviously, haven’t
By Michael Clifford
No comments:
Post a Comment