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.
LAST WEEK, THE Garda Commissioner appeared at the Oireachtas Justice Committee and apologised “for the grave mistakes and wrongdoing during the last decade”.
She went on to state that the current problems faced by the force could not be attributed to an individual, but that the force was collectively responsible.
The apology, combined with an acknowledgement of system failure, does little to remedy the problems faced by An Garda Síochána regarding both their operational and trust problems.
An abundance of inquiries
An Garda Síochána can hardly be seen as a body that has been free from scrutiny in recent years.
Going back a decade, the force was scrutinised in the Morris Inquiry. Its report, published in 2008, made wide ranging recommendations for change. However, despite effecting some reform many of the recommendations were either ignored or watered down.
In the aftermath of the Morris Inquiry, Dr Vicky Conway noted in her book, The Blue Wall of Silence, that a “cultural shift” was needed in relation to how An Garda Síochána and the country more generally thinks about policing, and that reforms should take place in a manner that is underpinned by a clear vision of policing.
She correctly cautioned that without such a change we were destined to continue on a “well-worn path of police scandal – police reform – lessening attention – police scandal.”
Policing scandals
Nearly ten years later An Garda Síochána are once again the subject of policing scandals. Between 2013 and March 2017 at least 15 inquiries have been established. These many inquiries are primarily focused on fact finding and accountability.
However, their very existence underpins the shortcomings of the “normal” oversight mechanisms such as the Garda Ombudsman.
The inquiries themselves struggle to achieve clear accountability. The Garda Commissioner’s declaration that the current crisis arose out of system failure effectively prevents effective accountability from taking place. This is because no one is identified as being to blame; no one is to be held directly accountable.
In addition, the establishment of multiple inquiries leads to a view that they are simply a diversionary tactic producing nothing of value and costing the taxpayers significant sums of money.
In effect, we have a critical disconnect between the existence of such inquiries and effective reform in our public bodies. It is easy to blame public inquiries for this, but such inquiries are only needed because of a failure in our accountability structures to begin with.
How can effective reform be achieved?
Given the establishment of numerous public inquiries, we are now faced with a likely array of findings and reform recommendations relating to An Garda Síochána.
In the past, such recommendations have tended to be only partially adopted, often watered down and implemented only after significant delays. If real and positive change is to be achieved in the aftermath of the current cluttered field of inquiries it will be necessary to have a clear overview of reform more generally and the potential impact of any such recommendations.
Also needed is a clear political commitment to effect change. A key criticism of public inquiries is that they allow governments to kick the ball down the road. No corrective action is said to be needed until the inquiry reports, yet by the time is does report the crisis has long since been forgotten.
So public inquiries need to commit to implementing real reform based on their work.
The opportunity offered by a “root and branch” review
Last week the government committed itself to establishing an external review of An Garda Síochána.
It is not yet clear what form that inquiry will take but there is talk of it resembling the Patten Commission which led to policing reform in Northern Ireland.
If it follows this model it would be a reform mechanism undertaken by independent policing experts from other jurisdictions. Such an inquiry should also engage directly with the public in a consultative manner holding public hearings.
There is merit in this type of body; it has the potential to deliver a significant reform programme based on an agreed understanding of how we should be policed today.
Developing an overview of reform recommendations
Such a body might also have an important role to play in relation to developing an overview of reform recommendations from previous and ongoing inquiries.
A model for this can be found in the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse in Australia.
As part of its remit, the Royal Commission published research into previous inquiry recommendations along with the factors which contributed to the successful implementation of recommendations and the barriers which prevented implementation.
It would be extremely constructive if an external review of An Garda Síochána adopted a similar approach. Such research would provide not only a clear picture of the recommendations which have been produced over the last decade but also an essential insight into what recommendations have been implemented and what factors can bring about effective reform in An Garda Síochána.
Public inquiries are often viewed as devices that can deflect criticism until some point in the distant future. Instead we need to recognise them as tools which can achieve both accountability and reform.
Designing into such inquiries mechanisms which will help to achieve real change is therefore critical.
Dr Fiona Donson is a lecturer in the Law School, University College Cork researching in the areas of Administrative Law and Criminal Justice. Fiona’s book, Law and Public Administration in Ireland (with Dr Darren O’Donovan) was published by Clarus Press in 2015. She is currently conducting research into the role and operation of public inquiries and Oireachtas inquiries as accountability mechanisms.
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
Systems failure, yes. Incompetence, yes. Dishonesty , yes. Fraud, yes. Unlawful activity , yes. Need for reform, yes. Need for more Inquiries, NO!’
Until persons responsible for the above are sacked nothing is going to change. If wrongdoers know that no matter how despicable their actions are they will not be sacked or severely disciplined they will just continue as they are.
@John Campbell: Says it all, really.
@John Campbell: sack her!
If they were ever used for accountability and reform, there might be some point to them. But as they are not, there is no point to them. You only have to look at the Moriarity Tribunal to see the truth of this.
What they are is a tool of deflection, and unaccountability, used by the government at every hands turn. If by chance something damaging to the government turns up in an inquiry, it is passed to the AG so a legal way out of publishing the damaging sections can be found.
Enquiries, commissions, tribunals, are useless to the public who need to see accountability, but valuable to governments who need no accountability.
I think the main issues with tribunals(why are we only calling them inquires now?) for the taxpayer are the cost, the lack of accountability and their inability to effect change. Why pay 10 million over 10 years only to find out the evidence you found can’t be used to prosecute anyone because of how it was obtained? I like the Australian idea of recommendations but I really feel inquires are a big waste of time and money. Does the law not have any other methods it can use?
@Luke Dillon: yes Luke, its called “arresting suspects” works out much quicker and cheaper too.
The problem in Ireland is the insatiable thirst for moral and legal accountability which comes at too high a price.
What we actually need is different and more pragmatic. It is managerial responsibility. If the results are bad, discipline the management involved. This may include demotion, reduction in salary, embargo on future promotion, even dismissal.
Look at the end results. Fix the problem. Remove the obstacles to reform. Let those who feel unfairly treated take civil compensation actions. Let them reveal everything.
We need a permanently sitting and fully resourced “Public Malfeasance Investigation Unit” with strong powers of investigation and legal compulsion and a confidential informant process. Its remit should extend beyond corruption and bribery in the narrow sense and be inclusive of all forms of impropriety and mismanagement. It should be given strong powers and be able to initiate a process before a dedicated and independent Public Misconduct Court which has an adjudicative and inquisitorial approach.
The present system is not fit for purpose.
With due respect to the eminent Dr Fiona her article has words like could and would and critical tools for change now lets see
1921 Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act some classics below
Kerry babies tribunal
Tribunal of Inquiry into the Beef Processing Industry
Hepatitis C infection of pregnant women; £4.7 million), McCracken (into Alleged Payments by Dunnes Stores; £6.56 million) and Lindsay (HIV and Hepatitis C infection of haemophiliacs; £46.649 million).
They had nothing on the length and absurd cost of the pleasantly named trio of Morris, Moriarty and Mahon though and the results of all were hugh changes in legislation and all wrongdoers banished and no malfeasence every again in Eireann. Right on lets kick the can down the road.
We all grasp the notion of seperation of Church and State! Policing and State Security is not separated within the Garda. The scandals within the Garda owes much to the same force performing a duel role.
When inquest after inquest produces no reform we must query why! Not questioned is the Garda Commissioner and her Gang knowing where the political bodies are buried. Cullinane had not the opportunity to dig up the political corpses. I can accept she is better than any of her minions but this alone does not explain why she stays glued to her slippery pole with all paying lip service to her demise!
have your say