Should another Garda Commissioner resign?

Sierra Oscar

Wow, this revelation is fairly big.

https://twitter.com/KatieGHannon/status/950341176686792705

Notes of Commission liaison officer Chief Supt Healy's contact with Noirin O'Sullivan on Day 2 of O'Higgins Comm: 'Garda Commissioner 'sought time to speak with Dept of Justice' . Then returned with instructions'.

So, was the then Minister for Justice Frances Fitzgerald aware of this? Did she sanction these instructions?

All eyes on the former Garda Commissioner's appearance now which is due next week.

Odhinn

Following on the above -
"Former Garda Commissioner Nóirín O’Sullivan, consulted with the Department of Justice before confirming that her counsel should question the motivation of Garda whistleblower Maurice McCabe at the O’Higgins Commission, a note from the time indicates.

The Charleton Tribunal has heard that on May 15th, 2015, the legal team acting for Ms O’Sullivan contacted the then commissioner to get her confirmation that it should question Sgt McCabe’s motivation.

An email was sent to the Garda contact for matters at the commission, Chief Superintendent Fergus Healy, who in turn spoke to Ms O’Sullivan. In a note taken on the day, he recorded that several telephone conversations had taken place between him and the then commissioner. The issue was “the requirement to question the motive of Sgt McCabe.

“Commissioner sought time to speak to DOJ,” the note recorded. “Then returned with instructions” that if counsel was so advising, then “we explore the issue of motive”. This advice was then given orally to the legal team."
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/o-sullivan-consulted-with-department-on-mccabe-strategy-charleton-told-1.3348449

Utterly disgraceful if true.

James Brown

Concern over multi-million euro Garda IT contracts

GIAS auditors found there was "no documentary evidence" to show how the force ended up agreeing to revised rates of pay for different grades of skilled Accenture personnel, when updating the terms of their original 2009 contract in 2016.

When the audit team asked Garda management how the new rates of pay with Accenture were decided upon, they were told the new rates had been "verbally agreed" between a senior manager in the force and Accenture, with no paper trail on the force's side.
https://www.rte.ie/news/2018/0107/931576-garda-procurement-concerns/

O'Sullivan and Fitzgerald have a few things in common;

They either knew what was going on under their leadership and should be held to account or they were incompetent at their then jobs having no clue what was happening around them.

Sierra Oscar

Right, long post incoming but it's not easy to condense into a few sentences the significance of today's proceedings at Dublin Castle.

So I'm just after reading through the fifty page opening Statement from today's opening proceedings. I've got to put up my hands and say its time to row back a little bit.

When you read the background to the disputed 'Mullingar meeting', which is central to all of this, the one which Sergeant McCabe produced a recording of, there is a huge discrepancy compared to what has been reported in the media to date.

The understanding I have from the frenzy of media reports last year was that Superintendent Cunningham (then Inspector), who Sergeant McCabe met with, told a blatant lie at the O'Higgins Commission when recalling this meeting. The media narrative is that Superintendent Cunningham alleged at the Commission that Sergeant McCabe specifically stated at the Mullingar meeting that he was motivated by malice. The media reports stated that Sergeant McCabe then produced the tape recording which completely rebuked this statement made by Superintendent Cunningham.

However, the contents contained in today's opening Statement clearly show that Superintendent Cunningham's notes of the meeting match those taken by Sergeant McCabe. They are essentially identical, they do not dispute at all what was discussed at the meeting. This is completely at odds with what has been reported in the media to date.

The media coverage of the meeting follows a narrative that Superintendent Cunningham told blatant lies about the meeting, but it now transpires both himself and Sergeant McCabe are in agreement of what was actually discussed. The key issue, and this is a major part of the entire Tribunal, is over how Superintendent Cunningham interpreted what Sergeant McCabe was attempting to achieve at the meeting.

This is an important extract from the Statement:

On the 25th of August 2008, there had been a meeting in Mullingar which was attended by Sergeant McCabe, Superintendent Noel Cunningham and Sergeant Yvonne Martin. The purpose of that meeting was ostensibly so as Superintendent Cunningham could discuss the allegations made by Sergeant McCabe in his report dated the 25th of February 2008 to Superintendent Clancy. These allegations concerned Mr D, his Garda colleague and the father of Ms D. This report, it would appear Sir, had been compiled by Sergeant McCabe, so as he could present a case to Superintendent Clancy in relation to the circulation of the directions of the DPP. The entire point of this report was to chronicle how Sergeant McCabe felt about the issues he had with the D family and to make a case that in light of all of that, surely the letter from the DPP ought to be circulated. He made a reasonable case.

So now it transpires that Sergeant McCabe was in fact bringing forward the dossier of allegations in an attempt to get the DPP to disclose it's decision in regard the Ms D case. This was an understandable course of action for him to take, and it seems Superintendent Clancy encouraged him to do so.

However the DPP decision could ultimately not be disseminated as McCabe desired as to do so would have breached Garda regulations. This is something Garda management simply could not order to happen.

Now back to the Mullingar meeting itself. Superintendent Cunnigham stated at the O'Higgins Commission that he ultimately believed Sergeant McCabe was bringing forward the allegations in an attempt to get Garda management to disseminate the DPP's findings. That was his interpertation of the meeting, and to a great extent the tape actually backs up what he is saying as do both his notes and those taken by Sergeant McCabe.

Superintendent Cunnigham seemingly never actually said that Sergeant McCabe specifically stated he was motivated by malice, yet that is what was reported in the media and ultimately led to the establishment of this tribunal.

The allegation that is out there is that Garda HQ ultimately manufactured a story to try and undermine Sergeant McCabe's credibility. However now it seems that this isn't even a consideration. Sergeant McCabe's own evidence shows that he himself placed the Ms D situation at the heart of this in trying to get the DPP to disseminate information.

Ultimately this was not possible, and Garda management felt that it was as a result of this failure to disseminate the DPP decision which led to McCabe pursuing his claims.

Now evidently there were a litany of questionable errors. The counsel for the Garda Commissioner at the O'Higgins Commission seemingly made a mess of the instructions he was given. Tusla made a major error with the file it was in possession of. Incorrect information was relayed between the Attorney General's Office and the Department of Justice in relation to the O'Higgins Commission. Ultimately it is the Tribunal's goal to find out just how genuine these errors were.

However, when you actually read today's statement you can see that there is a clear rationale in what Garda management were saying. It'll be interesting to see what Charleton makes of their case.

I'd encourage everyone to actually read the transcripts, all of which are available on the tribunal website. What is being reported in the media does not necessarily tally with the reality of the situation.

I reckon these journalists are fairly tuned in.

https://twitter.com/mickthehack/status/950385975657750528

https://twitter.com/KatieGHannon/status/950389834778103808

https://twitter.com/conormlally/status/950438534938275840

https://twitter.com/conormlally/status/950437303255732226

Captain Obvious

Almost everything related to McCabe since the very first whiff of penalty points has either been sensationalised or misrepresented in the media. It's not that shocking that some of it seems to be simply made up too.

Odhinn

If the above is the case then why was an investigation launched into that testimony (albeit belatedly)? And if they essentially agree, why did a judge listen to the tape and dismiss the notion of malice?

expectationlost

Captain Obvious wrote: »

Almost everything related to McCabe since the very first whiff of penalty points has either been sensationalised or misrepresented in the media. It's not that shocking that some of it seems to be simply made up too.

made up by the chief state solitictor's office?

Captain Obvious

expectationlost wrote: »

made up by the chief state solitictor's office?

Could be. Would it be that much more shocking than a Minister, TD, AG, Commissioner or Garda Officer?

Sierra Oscar

Odhinn wrote: »

If the above is the case then why was an investigation launched into that testimony (albeit belatedly)? And if they essentially agree, why did a judge listen to the tape and dismiss the notion of malice?

The O'Higgins Commission was conducted in private, no one except the participants knew exactly what had occurred at it.

For example, the former Minister for Justice Frances Fitzgerald always maintained that she couldn't comment on what had occurred during the Commission of investigation as she wasn't a participant in it. The leaked transcripts were doing the rounds in the media but she was reluctant to comment on them as they were afterall leaked transcripts of what was a private Commission protected by legislation from disclosure.

Ultimately it was determined that the Tribunal would have to investigate what occurred at the O'Higgins Commission to ensure everyone had a clear picture of what went on. That's why the Tribunal is now examining it.

We were lead to believe by the media that the detailing of events at the O'Higgins Commission would be explosive, especially in relation to the 'Mullingar meeting'. However it's actually ended up benefiting Garda management to a great extent.

The narrative was that Garda management brought the Ms D case out of the blue and sprung it on Sergeant McCabe and his legal team. However judging from the Opening Statement it now appears that the Ms D case had been central to this entire saga in the first place. It's why Sergeant McCabe brought forward his dossier.

The question now arises whether it was fair for Garda management to introduce the Ms D case in the O'Higgins Commission. Sergeant McCabe's legal team argues it wasn't as his motivation was never in question, but Garda management argue it was as he brought forward the dossier in the first place in an effort to get the DPP to disseminate information surrounding a case regarding him.

Garda management are saying he was self-motivated in bringing forward the allegations. Note, this doesn't mean he was wrong. The O'Higgins Commission has already vindicated him with most of his allegations, although not all of them.

Sergeant McCabe insists he was motivated by wanting to ensure the public was well served and An Garda Síochánawas reformed. Garda managment believe he was more so motivated by self-interest, hence the line of questioning that developed at the O'Higgins Commission. This is central to what Charleton has to make his judgement on.

The concluding remarks of the Opening Statement are important:

Sir, why are we examining these matters: if there was a plan to berate Sergeant McCabe should it have been stopped? Sir, there appears to have been no plan at any time to accuse him of the D allegations before the O’Higgins Commission. But where did any questioning by counsel for Commissioner O’Sullivan of his integrity and his motivation come from?

Eventually, after much hot air, a degree of clarity was brought to the matter through counsel’s letter of the 18th of May 2015 to the Commission. Anyone reading that, and one can be sure Sergeant McCabe read it, would understand that no one was accusing him of sexually assaulting Ms D. Rather, the issue raised was as to how he had reacted to the outcome and fallout of the investigation into the Ms D allegation conducted under then Inspector Noel Cunningham. How had he reacted?

...

So, perhaps, if his upset over the non-circulation of the DPP letter was ever relevant at all, it would have to be factually relevant to some relevant issue.

So Charleton essentially has to determine whether Garda management were justified in bringing in the Ms D case, or whether it was wrong to do so.

Now that's not to say that there isn't other issues to be clarified. Former Garda Press Officer Superintendent Taylor made a protected disclosure which is at heart of all this and the circumstances behind that are yet to be established. It's just not as seemingly clear cut as the media had made it out to be.

However I think it's clear to see where Garda management are going with this. They'll say that they weren't wrong in questioning McCabe's motivation when meeting with politicians and so on, they wanted to ensure people had the full picture (whether this was morally the right thing to do is a different story). They'll also probably claim Superintdent Taylor was motivated by self-interest due to his removal as Garda Press Officer over an entirely separate incident.

Ultimately we'll have to wait and see what Charleton says in his judgement, but it's worth reading over the raw transcript of events at the Tribunal.

expectationlost

think you have to look at the time line again

James Brown

Sierra Oscar wrote: »

Right, long post incoming but it's not easy to condense into a few sentences the significance of today's proceedings at Dublin Castle.....

Thanks for that. The issue remains; when McCabe began to blow the whistle, as it were, was there moves within the Garda ranks to discredit him? This, for me, is the key question. Followed by, how involved was the DoJ and Shatter/Fitzgerald/Flanagan? We know they may have been aware but may have forgot or may have done something but might have been told not to, but hopefully we'll get to some conclusions.
Personally I find the TULSA error very convenient. I would be highly suspicious. There's also the evidence going missing.
At the end of the day crimes or in the least untoward practices were reported and it seems the person who reported it was investigated as the potential criminal with as much if not more vigor than the alleged perpetrators. How far did this go and how much was the DoJ involved?
The Garda have shown themselves to be, at best, sloppy and as per Varadkar, the DoJ is a shambles, with no accountability for the shambles on Frances mind.

Odhinn

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Thanks for that. The issue remains; when McCabe began to blow the whistle, as it were, was there moves within the Garda ranks to discredit him? This, for me, is the key question. Followed by, how involved was the DoJ and Shatter/Fitzgerald/Flanagan? We know they may have been aware but may have forgot or may have done something but might have been told not to, but hopefully we'll get to some conclusions.
Personally I find the TULSA error very convenient. I would be highly suspicious. There's also the evidence going missing.
At the end of the day crimes or in the least untoward practices were reported and it seems the person who reported it was investigated as the potential criminal with as much if not more vigor than the alleged perpetrators. How far did this go and how much was the DoJ involved?
The Garda have shown themselves to be, at best, sloppy and as per Varadkar, the DoJ is a shambles, with no accountability for the shambles on Frances mind.

Indeed, having been on the receiving end from Callinan/O'Sullivan personally, I find absence of malice impossible to believe, given the nature of the man.

Odhinn

Sierra Oscar wrote: »

The O'Higgins Commiss(.............)his judgement, but it's worth reading over the raw transcript of events at the Tribunal.

I've read over it again this evening, and perhaps it's age, but it will need another read before it sinks in.

Sierra Oscar

Odhinn wrote: »

I've read over it again this evening, and perhaps it's age, but it will need another read before it sinks in.

It's tough reading in fairness, especially with all the legal jargon and so on.

Odhinn

Sierra Oscar wrote: »

It's tough reading in fairness, especially with all the legal jargon and so on.

(The following may be wrong)

Going on the transcript that was on Broadsheet, it would seem that the interpretation of that infamous meeting that caused the problem related to a 20 point letter written by an Eileen Creedon, then chief state solicitor. In point 19, she states
"In the course of this meeting Sergeant McCabe advised Superintendent Cunningham that the only reason he made the complaints against Superintendent Clancy was to force him to allow sergeant McCabe to have the full DPP directions conveyed to him.”
and this was not the thrust of the testimony, as far as I can make out, of the two gardai in question, according to either them or the recording.

Would that be the guts of it?

Sierra Oscar

Odhinn wrote: »

(The following may be wrong)

Going on the transcript that was on Broadsheet, it would seem that the interpretation of that infamous meeting that caused the problem related to a 20 point letter written by an Eileen Creedon, then chief state solicitor. In point 19, she states
"In the course of this meeting Sergeant McCabe advised Superintendent Cunningham that the only reason he made the complaints against Superintendent Clancy was to force him to allow sergeant McCabe to have the full DPP directions conveyed to him.”
and this was not the thrust of the testimony, as far as I can make out, of the two gardai in question, according to either them or the recording.

Would that be the guts of it?

Yes it would seem that letter did kick start a chain of events which led to a misinterpretation of what actually transpired at the O'Higgins Commission - including in media reports.

Still lot's of explaining to be done by the various State entities, including the Gardaí. The Mullingar meeting and it's discussion at the O'Higgins Commission is just one small component of what is being examined in the wider scheme of things. For example the Tribunal has only reached section "e" of the Terms of Reference so far. Arguably a lot of the more important matters haven't even been discussed yet.

I just think it shows that we have to be somewhat conscious of the fact that the media reporting surrounding this whole saga has been off the mark at times. I guess that's no surprise though when you consider the full facts are only emerging now that they are being examined by the Tribunal.

Garda officers accused of trying to damage Sgt McCabe now suing media

I'm not hugely surprised by this considering what was in this weeks opening statement.

Two Garda officers who it was alleged were attempting to give misleading information to damage Sgt Maurice McCabe at the O’Higgins commission are taking legal action against several media outlets.

...

It has been suggested in the Dáil by Mick Wallace TD that they had planned to give evidence to the commission detailing how Sgt McCabe told them he had lodged a complaint against a senior officer that was motivated by a sense of grievance or grudge.

However, in its opening statement at its latest module on Monday, the Charleton tribunal shed new light on that.

It emerged at the tribunal that an inaccurate summary of the evidence Supt Cunningham intended to give was furnished by counsel for the Garda Commissioner to other parties at the commission in 2015.

...

It is anticipated the legal actions being pursued by Supt Cunningham and Sgt Martin will relate to some of the media’s reporting about these matters.

markodaly

Odhinn wrote: »

Indeed, having been on the receiving end from Callinan/O'Sullivan personally, I find absence of malice impossible to believe, given the nature of the man.

Do tell or perhaps your personal past is clouding your judgement here?

djPSB

www.policereform.ie to submit your feedback on the future of An Garda Siochana.

Odhinn

The communications clinic run by Terry Prone is used by the Gardai

"An Garda Siochana paid the the firm €10,400 and €92,955 in 2015 and 2016 respectively."
Yet in ways mysterious and wondrous to behold, it has no record of any communication between themselves and said company.
http://www.broadsheet.ie/2018/01/11/foxe-appeal/

Again, it really seems transparency is very far off.

James Brown

djPSB wrote: »

www.policereform.ie to submit your feedback on the future of An Garda Siochana.

It's a grand idea, but is it a 'take it under advisement' PR blag?

hatrickpatrick

Did anyone see this cartoon in the Irish Times? Pretty much sums up where we're at right now:



Seriously, does anyone else think that we need far, far stronger powers and penalties for tribunals, commissions of investigation, and indeed the Oireachtas itself, to compel testimonies and file handovers from state agencies under scrutiny - and that misleading or omitting such information should carry criminal penalties?

In all honesty, as far as I'm concerned failing to provide this evidence to a commission of investigation in a timely manner, as parodied above, should be regarded as a very serious crime, under the umbrella of "conspiracy to pervert the course of justice".

Now, I realise that you have to prove deliberate malicious intent on the part of the accused, but seeing as negligence is a possible crime in other areas - in other words, not necessarily a deliberate act but so incompetent or negligent as to constitute a crime nonetheless - could we not craft a similar law with regard to this, so that excuses - like the one trotted out during the recent Frances FitzGerald email controversy - of "well we didn't realise we had that document / we only just found it / we believed we were telling the truth when we claimed we didn't know about this" would become redundant?

I remember a few years ago when GSOC was investigating their informant case, they published a report about how face-deskingly frustrating they found it, trying to compel the Gardai to hand over relevant documents and how this ultimately damaged their enquiry. It seems to me that being able to hold individuals in state agencies criminally responsible for failing to disclose information to such an investigation should be a fairly basic aspect of any legislation underpinning such enquiries - in the same way that if I was a witness to a serious crime and I failed to turn over evidence when requested by the courts, I could easily find myself being accused of obstructing justice.

Odhinn

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Did anyone see this cartoon in the Irish Times? Pretty much sums up where we're at right now:



Seriously, does anyone else think that we need far, far stronger powers and penalties for tribunals, commissions of investigation, and indeed the Oireachtas itself, to compel testimonies and file handovers from state agencies under scrutiny - and that misleading or omitting such information should carry criminal penalties?

In all honesty, as far as I'm concerned failing to provide this evidence to a commission of investigation in a timely manner, as parodied above, should be regarded as a very serious crime, under the umbrella of "conspiracy to pervert the course of justice".

Now, I realise that you have to prove deliberate malicious intent on the part of the accused, but seeing as negligence is a possible crime in other areas - in other words, not necessarily a deliberate act but so incompetent or negligent as to constitute a crime nonetheless - could we not craft a similar law with regard to this, so that excuses - like the one trotted out during the recent Frances FitzGerald email controversy - of "well we didn't realise we had that document / we only just found it / we believed we were telling the truth when we claimed we didn't know about this" would become redundant?

I remember a few years ago when GSOC was investigating their informant case, they published a report about how face-deskingly frustrating they found it, trying to compel the Gardai to hand over relevant documents and how this ultimately damaged their enquiry. It seems to me that being able to hold individuals in state agencies criminally responsible for failing to disclose information to such an investigation should be a fairly basic aspect of any legislation underpinning such enquiries - in the same way that if I was a witness to a serious crime and I failed to turn over evidence when requested by the courts, I could easily find myself being accused of obstructing justice.

There should be, however I'd imagine it would be decades in the making and probably toothless by the time it hit the statute books.

Water John

A judge might consider you, in contempt of court, and land you in a cell without delay or much process.
It is contempt for the Judicial Process as Tribunals and Official Enquiries, which, whilst not Courts of Law are part of our Judicial System.

Captain Obvious

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Did anyone see this cartoon in the Irish Times? Pretty much sums up where we're at right now:

Seriously, does anyone else think that we need far, far stronger powers and penalties for tribunals, commissions of investigation, and indeed the Oireachtas itself, to compel testimonies and file handovers from state agencies under scrutiny - and that misleading or omitting such information should carry criminal penalties?

In all honesty, as far as I'm concerned failing to provide this evidence to a commission of investigation in a timely manner, as parodied above, should be regarded as a very serious crime, under the umbrella of "conspiracy to pervert the course of justice".

Now, I realise that you have to prove deliberate malicious intent on the part of the accused, but seeing as negligence is a possible crime in other areas - in other words, not necessarily a deliberate act but so incompetent or negligent as to constitute a crime nonetheless - could we not craft a similar law with regard to this, so that excuses - like the one trotted out during the recent Frances FitzGerald email controversy - of "well we didn't realise we had that document / we only just found it / we believed we were telling the truth when we claimed we didn't know about this" would become redundant?

I remember a few years ago when GSOC was investigating their informant case, they published a report about how face-deskingly frustrating they found it, trying to compel the Gardai to hand over relevant documents and how this ultimately damaged their enquiry. It seems to me that being able to hold individuals in state agencies criminally responsible for failing to disclose information to such an investigation should be a fairly basic aspect of any legislation underpinning such enquiries - in the same way that if I was a witness to a serious crime and I failed to turn over evidence when requested by the courts, I could easily find myself being accused of obstructing justice.

A lot of it comes from the way information is requested. They'll send a request to a Garda who is on holiday or long term sick leave and then complain, or more likely do nothing, when they hear nothing back. They don't seek an acknowledgement of the request. To get to the Garda the request will have to go through at least 6 different people in the chain of command, and the same back again, which leaves even more room for issues to arise. The requests also tend to be very vague, in the vein of "forward anything relevant to the disclosure tribunal". What's relevant to one person may not be to another.

Water John

An acknowledgement of the request, has to asked for???, ffs. That would be standard inmost walks of life. Likewise when asked to submit, relevant material, by a legal entity, I would always err on the over supply side. It wouldn't be, my call, or indeed your's, on any thing that might be relevant.

Look at the trouble any person asked for material or filing their returns to the DOJ in the USA. Anyone who, 'forgot' anything, are, up the creek when Mueller gets at them. And so it should be, here too.
None of this, I wasn't asked the right question. Or I thought.

Captain Obvious

Water John wrote: »

An acknowledgement of the request, has to asked for???, ffs. That would be standard inmost walks of life.

It should be. No point complaining you got nothing back if you never even got an acknowledgement that your request was received.

Water John wrote: »

Likewise when asked to submit, relevant material, by a legal entity, I would always err on the over supply side. It wouldn't be, my call, or indeed your's, on any thing that might be relevant.

But unless you have been following the case how are you to know what is relevant? If you got that request what would you deem relevant? If you once spoke to McCabe at a checkpoint would that be relevant? If you worked in Cavan on the day he was accused of touching that child inappropriately should you submit every record you took on that day? And that's just the McCabe stuff. He is the most prominent issue. What about everything else Should you submit everything you ever got with O'Sullivan's name on it? A vague request is about as useful as a prayer.

Water John wrote: »

Look at the trouble any person asked for material or filing their returns to the DOJ in the USA. Anyone who, 'forgot' anything, are, up the creek when Mueller gets at them. And so it should be, here too.
None of this, I wasn't asked the right question. Or I thought.

You're comparing apples with oranges. Those are people who didn't do their jobs. Gardaí aren't admin staff. No good asking a country Garda in Cavan with 30 years service to submit every record he may or may not have that might be relevant to the Disclosures Tribunal. If you aren't specific you are just wasting your time.

James Brown

In any other first world country, entering into verbal contracts, with no paper trail, using tax payer money, alone, would be, let's say, eye brow raising to say the least. No wonder they are a little shy about producing documents.
As regards being Garda and not admin, do they lock difficult paperwork in a cell over night? All organisations have an admin process, it's part of Garda work to process files. I've seen it done by uniformed Garda. Some are a dab hand at 'sorting' penalty points etc. on the aul' tinternet too.

Odhinn

Water John wrote: »

An acknowledgement of the request, has to asked for???, ffs. That would be standard inmost walks of life. Likewise when asked to submit, relevant material, by a legal entity, I would always err on the over supply side. It wouldn't be, my call, or indeed your's, on any thing that might be relevant.

Look at the trouble any person asked for material or filing their returns to the DOJ in the USA. Anyone who, 'forgot' anything, are, up the creek when Mueller gets at them. And so it should be, here too.
None of this, I wasn't asked the right question. Or I thought.

The mistake of letting them essentially "get on with it" (act with few if any checks) has led to the institutionalisation of the "blue wall of silence". This is of course wide open to abuse by the few cynical and corrupt amongst them, and thats led us to where we are today.

hatrickpatrick

There's a joke in Yes Minister that if a government agency isn't too concerned about a file being discovered, they shred it - but if they really want to make sure nobody can ever find it again, they file it. Whether or not that's entirely just a bit of humour is something I've often wondered about since this whole Garda saga began.

Odhinn

"Today, the tribunal was shown a series of three emails sent by Ms O'Sullivan to Ms Fitzgerald on 18 May 2016.

In them, Ms O'Sullivan suggests that Ms Fitzgerald could tell the Dáil that at no point did the Garda Commissioner instruct her legal team to accuse Sgt McCabe of malice.

Ms O'Sullivan also enclosed her legal instructions, and suggested the minister could say she had full confidence in the Commissioner."

https://www.rte.ie/news/ireland/2018/0112/932754-disclosures-tribunal-resumes/

I presume that the above relies on the semantical difference between attacking his motivation etc and the specific accusation of "malice"?
Also -

"The tribunal was also shown contact between the Department of Justice and the Garda Commissioner where they appeared to consult on the Commissioner's response to the controversy.

Tribunal Chairman Mr Justice Peter Charleton said it appeared to be an empty exercise as the Garda Commissioner was setting out views to the department which it had already seen.

The contact between the Commissioner and the minister emerged during questioning of today's witness, the former Secretary-General of the Department of Justice, Noel Waters.

Mr Waters said he could not recall receiving various emails and could not say what his reaction would have been.

He said some were forwarded to an incorrect email address so he would not have got them. He also said he did not recall a 14-minute phone call with the Garda Commissioner on the day the row broke out at the O'Higgins Commission.

During cross examination, Sgt McCabe's lawyer, Michael McDowell, suggested to Mr Waters that the Commissioner must have told him what went on as she was in the middle of a very delicate matter at the commission.

Mr Waters said he could not confirm and he had no recollection.

He said he did not know about anything happening at the O'Higgins Commission's hearings."

https://www.rte.ie/news/ireland/2018/0112/932754-disclosures-tribunal-resumes/

I don't believe that for a second, tbh.