We need your help now
Support from readers like you keeps The Journal open.
You are visiting us because we have something you value. Independent, unbiased news that tells the truth. Advertising revenue goes some way to support our mission, but this year it has not been enough.
If you've seen value in our reporting, please contribute what you can, so we can continue to produce accurate and meaningful journalism. For everyone who needs it.
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.
By continuing, you are indicating that you accept our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy.
THE EVENTS OF the night of 24 March has been shrouded in mystery since the resignation of former garda commissioner Martin Callinan.
Yesterday, with the publication of the Fennelly Report, more details about that fateful late-night meeting between the Secretary General at the Department of Justice and the police chief emerged.
The home visit has now been described as the “immediate catalyst” to Callinan’s decision to retire. That move came just before knowledge that telephone calls in and out of garda stations had been recorded was made public.
According to the report, during a meeting of the Taoiseach, the Justice Minister Alan Shatter and Secretary General to the government Martin Fraser, it was decided that the most appropriate person to talk to Callinan about issues raised by the Attorney General about the phone call recordings controversy was the Secretary General at the Department of Justice Brian Purcell.
Once Purcell had been called to government buildings and appraised of the situation, the men set about to decide where the conversation should take place.
Various options were explored and dismissed.
So, despite it being something he did not want to do, Purcell agreed to arrange a meeting at Callinan’s home.
It was described to the Fennelly Commission as “the least worst option”.
The word “uncomfortable” is used multiple times throughout the following pages of Fennelly’s report, with Purcell making it very clear that is how he felt throughout the final hours of 24 March.
According to the report:
He had never had to do this before and did not believe that any other Secretary General had done so. A visit by him to the home of a Garda Commissioner was an unprecedented event.
However, the Taoiseach deemed it necessary. He believed it would be “absolutely unfair” to have new information come out at a Cabinet meeting about the controversy.
“I felt it would be grossly unfair to him to say, like, wait until the morning, a half an hour before a Cabinet meeting fixed for 10.30am, what are you going to do. So it’s just a matter of, if you like, normal courtesy,” Enda Kenny said in evidence.
Both the Attorney General and the Taoiseach had expressed grave concerns over the controversy, not least at the impact it could have on the ongoing Bailey litigation.
Former Justice Minister Alan Shatter offered to accompany Purcell to Callinan’s house but the SecGen said it was “something that’s better if I do it myself”.
This offer was seen by Purcell as a “genuine attempt to share the burden”. To underline his point, he disclosed that at 12.05am on 25 March Shatter sent him a text saying “This is horrendous”.
Earlier – at 10.15pm to be exact – Purcell called Callinan to indicate that he needed to speak to him about a matter that could not be discussed over the phone.
Callinan, for his part, had “absolutely no idea” what this could be about. He suggested both the Department’s buildings and Garda HQ as destinations but Purcell said he would call to his home.
Twenty-five minutes later, he had arrived for what he would later describe as one of the worst day of his career.
It was a terrible moment, a terrible thing for [him] to have to deal with.
The report goes to pains to outline Callinan’s “own state of knowledge” at the time of this meeting. It asks the reader to remember that the Commissioner had:
“In other words,” the report reads, “the Commissioner, from his perspective, had good reason to presume that from as early as November 2013, and certainly by 10/11 March 2014, both the Attorney General and the Minister for Justice would have been made aware of the key facts in relation to the general recording issue and the Bailey case.”
He had no sense that this was now being treated as a matter of great gravity.
The meeting was characterised in the report as a lengthy discussion punctuated by long silences.
To Purcell and his discomfort, those silences “seemed like an eternity“.
Despite some insignificant recollections by the participants, Fennelly has given a summary of the event.
According to that synopsis, Purcell had consistent messages for Callinan. Firstly, that Enda Kenny had “grave concerns” about the issue. And, secondly, that he may not be able to convey his own confidence in the Commissioner at Cabinet the next day because he wasn’t sure how other Ministers would receive the news of the recording issue.
Callinan says he recalls asking Purcell if it was perceived he had done anything wrong. He was assured this was not the case.
He was also told that the Taoiseach did not believe he was involved in setting up a system to record non-999 calls.
This part of the discussion brought “a lot of silences”.
The Commissioner said he continuously sought an answer as to why the Secretary General of the Justice Department was in his house for a late-night meeting.
The awareness [of the issue] was out there, I couldn’t understand it…”
The response to Callinan’s question about whether the government had confidence in him was not met with a full answer. Purcell said it would be a matter for discussion before Cabinet.
Callinan said he was told there were “other issues coming down the line” including “problems in or around the justice system“.
The report concedes that the meeting of two men who knew each other very well was “an extremely difficult one”. Fennelly writes:
The Commissioner was surprised and shocked. He had had no inkling that anything of the sort was to take place. He had a very strong professional and personal relationship with the Secretary General and could see that Mr Purcell was extremely uncomfortable.
“He also said that that he felt ‘Mr Purcell had a certain degree of difficulty in imparting whatever he had to impart to me as well’.
Fennelly notes that it is “surprising” that there was no discussion of the letter of 10 March from Callinan to the Department of Justice.
He also said it was “unfortunate” that the Commissioner was not aware that nobody at the earlier meeting knew of its existence except Purcell.
Therefore, it does not make up much of the narrative of the 24 March – except as a reason why Callinan continued to be confused about the presence of a senior government official in his house at midnight.
In a handwritten diary the next day, Callinan jotted down his recollection of the meeting under a heading: Note of Meeting with Sec. Gen. @ house (made 25/3/14).
It read:
He had taken from the fact that Purcell had visited his home late at night to tell him of the Taoiseach’s grave concerns that he was expected to consider his position.
He said several times that “from his experience” this is what had to happen, despite Purcell not using that phrase.
I want to be very clear, there was absolutely no options put on the table to me.
And later, in evidence, he added: “I was left in no doubt what I had to do then that evening. I was left in absolutely no doubt.”
Callinan’s initial decision was to announce his retirement but to postpone it for a three month period.
However, this was rejected by the Taoiseach overnight. Claiming he hadn’t “slept a wink” Kenny said that any early retirement must come in with immediate effect.
“Having considered this all night,” he wrote the next day in a text message to Purcell, “Once decision on early ret is made it simply has to be immediate. Otherwise Cabinet accepts reason for stepping down but allows it to continue. This would simply not be feasible in any circumstance. Hs therefore to be with immediate effect.”
After a phonecall to convey this message, Callinan told Purcell he would be retiring for family and personal reasons.
Originally posted Tuesday evening. Updated 7am Wednesday.
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
We had a few people over from America meeting a few of our work colleagues in Cork, the visitors had already arrived in Cork City the night before before the meeting. One of the visitors was black and when they met with our colleagues the group of three were not in great form. They didn’t have to be asked what was wrong as they came straight out and said they have been all over the world and have never been subjected to the racial abuse they received in Cork. Our people were a bit surprised and asked for some example of what happened them. The black person gave one example and said they were in a bar the night before and when he looked for drinks the barman said “what do you want, boy”. This little Corkism was enough to cause upset and after a bust of laughter all was explained and peace restored.
I remember I use to be an open minded non-racist…but then I moved to London, it’s funny how re-location can alter your opinions…for example I’m not fond of Nigerians and just so happens their black, does that make me racist? I think they’ve a bad and or aggressive attitude maybe due to their strict upbringing (not all)….the debates very VERY long!!!! Why should we have to like other countries when we against everything they stand for…why should we just accept? I’m not in anyway neo nazi and I’m totally against EDL!!! It’s all about the right approach.
Ben
When you generalise and attribute characteristics to a group of people who come from a particular country or region,
That, my friend, is racism
did’nt our Gov do that with the travellers??!!!
Well…guess I’m a racist then cause I don’t particularly like Australia’s either for minor reasons…(1) their loud (2) drunkards and (3) annoying accents, hope I can sleep tonight.
Well, xenophobia :p
No Dave, it is not racist to generalise, that is the most idiotic idea to ever come from as human. The fact is some cultures are not compatible, it has nothing to do with race and everything to do with culture and societal norms. What is normal behaviour for a Nigerian may not be normal for an Irish person and vice versa, recognising this difference is not racism. The fact is culture is a generalist attribute of nations, this can not be denied it is a fact. So go educate yourself before you call people racist you absolute tool.
Dave
I’m an Italian man living here few years, and a part from some smart comments like ” spaghetti, la mamma” etc.. I can say that Irish are just not racists.
In support to Ben it is strange how the vision about the black can be altered here in Ireland.
That happened to myself I must admit. And keep in mind that back home I was ready to go and volunteer for a project in Burkina Faso.
But when it comes to Nigerians we are naturally thinking at a possible scam. Also most of their approach in terms of manners it come across like rude and sometimes aggressive.
Having say that, the new generations are getting integrated into the culture and maybe in 20 years time we will drinking pints with them in the pub and the culture difference will disappear.
But at the moment there is a difference and is just not compatible. Except of course for those very few cases where they accept this culture and traditions.
If you want to call me racist you’re more than welcome but this is what it is.
Gianni
Well said Gianni, pay no attention to the idiots calling everyone ‘racist’ that is the oldest trick in the book to stifle or prevent debate on the subject. When these half wits call people racist it just demonstrates that they have no argument.
Tom this is the oxford dictionary of racism – I’d say that’s educating enough….Definition of racism in English
racism
Pronunciation: /ˈreɪsɪz(ə)m/
Translate racism | into French | into German | into Italian | into Spanish
noun
[mass noun]
the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics, abilities, or qualities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races:
theories of racism
prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one’s own race is superior:
a programme to combat racism
Dave, I don’t need you to Google the word racism in order define it for me, I’m well aware of its definition. Still, my point stands, it is not racist to generalise based on cultural norms, it is racist to generalise based on colour of skin or race alone. Do ya get it now?
There is nothing racist about recognising that some cultures clash with western or Irish ideals and norms. It is a fact.
But Ben, they can spell.
Forgot to mention the cultural thing in my post..but your 100% right with comparability.
Fantastic point Gianni say it how it is.
* you’re
Ben
Two small stories about Nigerians.
First: a Nigerian woman was parking on Dawson Street at 4.00pm so I explained to her about the clearway system. She looked straight through me and walked off, leaving her car on the clearway.
A taxi ride from Dublin Airport. The taxi driver (Nigerian) and I spent the journey setting Ireland’s problems to rights and roundly condemning the useless politicians in Leinster House.
Two sides of the same Nigerian coin.
Some are Ben , some are not
Know all Australians now do you
That’s petty in my opinion, I hate grammar nazi’s..I am fully aware of the their, there and there’re differences! I just wrote as I thought….! Ya clown.
Haha good man Dave biting…Jesus I was being vague with my opinions…I like nice people in all aspects of life, be it Australians, Nigerians, Dubs etc etc.
Ben all your doing is making a fool of yourself
The fourth article on The Journal about racism and immigrants rights in the space of a week, what the hell is going on? Is the Journal trying to push an agenda or is it a personal crusade by the editor of The Journal? Why did you delete this comment? Is censorship the norm for The Journal now? Losing all credibility fast.
Dave, we all know what racism means at this stage. History in different countries, tragic events and being actual the recent death of a great man and his fight against apartheid.
But believe me this just a culture difference clash, two extremes trying to find a middle way.
It all goes down to get the time to be fully integrated with the culture…but this a “new” phenomenon for Ireland and I’m sure that eventually the difference will be smoother and smoother until it disappears.
Please give us a deal of adjustments and stop using the word Racism so easily.
An Italian
But you’re judging a whole countries people on the few that you have met, or heard about.
Do you know all the people you comment on? Have you done exhaustive studies to back up your wild generalisations?
Everybody is different
The only thing you can generalise about is people who generalise are idiots
Dave,
You have to be able to look at the bigger picture. No offence but you sound to me the antiracism knight more than an open minded person that is capable to see things from above.
Culture differences are a fact! Hope you agree with me.
Of course there are cases of nice people despite of their nationalities. But we’re talking about characteristics that identify people, their customs and traditions that are linked to their country.
I’ve been in Nigeria myself and let me tell you…..you wouldn’t go around Lagos screaming I’m not racist!
As European we have an history of colonies, crusades etc. etc….
But the integration of such an extreme culture difference takes time.
Example: you can take a Nigerian in London working for a bank in canary wolf and we wouldn’t have this conversation.
Again Dave….culture differences are a fact and it takes time to adjust them specially when they are so far from each other.
On a funny side if this difference wouldn’t exist we would probably be eating spaghetti or tapas instead of drinking cold pints around “traditional” Irish pubs!
Don’t call this being racist mate!
If you use generalised prejudices to make statements about anybody based on where they are from,
You
Are
Racist
have your say