Should another Garda Commissioner resign?

hatrickpatrick

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The 'busy minister' may be a valid excuse for some people but it was also
a perfectly legitimate reason for seeking her resignation from the job. If she 'missed' 'forgot' or 'ignored' something so important then she deserved the sack or to fall on her own sword.

I'd even forgive missing it if it was worded in incomprehensible legalese which made it look insignificant (this is a known tactic for obfuscation, see the Yes Minister episode "The Whisky Priest" for a hilarious example of this) - the real issue here is the treatment of the Oireachtas by members of the cabinet. If you're asked a question by your bosses (which is what the Oireachtas -> Minister relationship is supposed to be analogous to), being sure of your facts is a very reasonable expectation. A minister shouldn't hesitate to say "I'd like to consult with my department and verify the facts before I answer this question, but I will answer it first thing tomorrow when the Dáil reconvenes" instead of making the assumption that he or she is telling the truth when answering a question without checking the facts. However, the opposition would most likely turn the screw and attack a minister for taking such a pause for clarification ("You don't know these things off the top of your head?! Outrageous!"), and this is a problem in our political culture.

Essentially, all sides of the Oireachtas totally disrespect question time. Roisin Shorthall pointed this out during Enda Kenny's time when he mocked the opposition in response to a reasonable question. It should be a solemn occasion taken seriously by both opposition and government, as a chance for the public to receive information about how their government is representing them - instead, it's treated as a points-scoring exercise by both the opposition and the government. This paradigm needs to change.

EDIT: Here's the clip from Yes Minister, showing the legalese method of obfuscation which I suspect was used in the email under discussion:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pGJH_-S_MGs

Auguste Comte

Wheeliebin30 wrote: »

I see Francis Fitzgerald was vindicated too.

The opposition are a joke, Sinn Fein forcing her to resign for political gain when she done nothing wrong.

Will they be held accountable for this?

Of course not.

A report like this is published and its the shinners you think need to be held accountable? Jesus wept.

James Brown

Baron de Charlus wrote: »

I don't know. I'd agree with the first half of this but maybe not the second.

The goal of a tribunal is to try and establish the truth. The problem is they don't appease the loonies. Because they're not interested in the truth and will just continue to believe what they want to believe. They've already decided themselves what the truth is and it doesn't matter who the tribunal condemns or who the tribunal clears, it isn't going to change their opinions.

'Loonies' is a bit harsh. There are those who will still have issues with McCabe, O'Sullivan etc. And we should question such things IMO. The point is what have we learned and what will change? Likely nothing sadly.

Chips Lovell

We've learned quite a bit about what exactly went on in fairness. Whether it'll change anything remains to be seen.

James Brown

I meant learned as in lessons learned. But as you say, that will be borne out by what changes, if any come from it.
The last I heard about the DoJ was how much of a shambles it was in, as per Varadkar. Not much since Flanagan took the helm besides an email he deemed not important.

Minister for Justice Charlie Flanagan has told the Dáil that he "simply missed the significance" of the May 2015 email about the treatment of Maurice McCabe at the O’Higgins Commission.
https://www.rte.ie/news/2017/1128/923450-flanagan-justice/

Alan_P

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Where does it say that she didn't mislead the Dail? Which is why she had to resign.

Are you sure that's why she was forced to resign ? What was she accused of misleading the Dail about ?

FrancieBrady

Alan_P wrote: »

Are you sure that's why she was forced to resign ? What was she accused of misleading the Dail about ?

She forgot. Just like Naughten forgot the dinners he had with a lobbyist I suppose.

Allegations that the Gardaí attempted to undermine Sergeant McCabe's testimony to the O'Higgins Commissioned were referenced in an email sent to then-Minister of Justice Frances Fitzgerald in May of 2015.

The email, which the Tánaiste claims she read and forgot the details of, contradict a claim made by the Taoiseach Leo Varadkar in the Dáil last week that Minister Fitzgerald became aware of the possible strategy to undermine McCabe "around the time it entered the public domain" - which would have been around May 2016, a year after she received the email in question.

The email served to notify the Minister of a dispute that emerged during the O'Higgins commission, and it reported that "counsel for the Garda Síochána has raised as an issue in the hearings an allegation against Sergeant McCabe," later referring to the allegation as a "serious criminal complaint."

It goes on to inform the Minister that "presumably the Garda Síochána are raising the matter on the basis they could argue that it is potentially relevant to motivation."

The Director of Public Prosecutions recommended no prosecution on the allegation.

'Revising their position'

Following the discovery of the email by Department of Justice officials, Frances Fitzgerald and the Taoiseach were forced to revise their position on when Fitzgerald became aware of the alleged Garda strategy.

blanch152

blanch152 wrote: »

Just reading the transcripts, the backpedalling by Taylor etc. None of the stuff being thrown at O'Sullivan appears to be sticking.

At the very least, she is likely to found to be more sinned against than sinning, with the possibility of being fully exonerated still live.

I got pilloried by certain posters when I posted this some months ago.

Haven't seen anything in the Charleton Report that contradicts this post.

I wonder will those on here who owe O'Sullivan an apology manage to do the big thing and apologise.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

I got pilloried by certain posters when I posted this some months ago.

Haven't seen anything in the Charleton Report that contradicts this post.

I wonder will those on here who owe O'Sullivan an apology manage to do the big thing and apologise.

O'Sullivan's tenure is the next one in front of a tribunal. You are claiming victory too early.

Hitman3000

blanch152 wrote:

I wonder will those on here who owe O'Sullivan an apology manage to do the big thing and apologise.

Premature tbh.

Hitman3000

blanch152 wrote:

I got pilloried by certain posters when I posted this some months ago.

You also got pilloried for comments you made about McCabe I assume in light of the findings about McCabe's motivations and unblemished character you will be taking a period of reflection?

blanch152

Hitman3000 wrote: »

You also got pilloried for comments you made about McCabe I assume in light of the findings about McCabe's motivations and unblemished character you will be taking a period of reflection?

Not at all, I said McCabe was only partially right, and I stand over that.

Hitman3000

blanch152 wrote:

Not at all, I said McCabe was only partially right, and I stand over that.

I won't go fetching your posts but your were a little more strident in your comments about McCabe being partially right.

McMurphy

Phoebas wrote: »

McGuinness kept the secret meeting secret for a good while.
We have the chairman of the PAC holding a secret meeting with an upcoming witness that we keeps secret from the committee members.

Both of them are very badly compromised in this. I'd suggest that anyone thinking that McGuiness is 'completely plausible' is doing so because they want to believe him.

I guess Peter Charleton wanted to too.

Edward M

Taylor suspended from duty, it appears action may happen against the offenders against McCabe, I wonder can anything be done on their pension entitlements?
https://m.independent.ie/irish-news/garda-supt-david-taylor-suspended-from-duty-following-disclosures-tribunal-findings-37418394.html

emo72

can callinan be financially sanctioned? or is he scot free riding off into the sunset?

rovertom

emo72 wrote: »

can callinan be financially sanctioned? or is he scot free riding off into the sunset?

Surely the actions as reported of an acting commissioner using his position in that manner is criminal.

Water John

I would say the main play will be the civil case the McCabes will have against, the Minister for Justice, Gardai and Callinan and Taylor. Callinan and Taylor won't be able to indemnify themselves.

Water John

Taylor heading for retirement on full pension. That doesn't get him to safe land.

Seth Brundle

Talking to some gardai earlier, they believe that Callinan is still culpable for his actions whilst commissioner despite his retirement and that it may be possible for him to be fined.
He is also personally named in McCabes legal action against the state.

tayto lover

Water John wrote: »

Taylor heading for retirement on full pension. That doesn't get him to safe land.

Taylor and that other lad from Donegal tried to piggy back on Mc Cabe.
They got what they deserved I.e. Nothing.

Captain Obvious

Seth Brundle wrote: »

Talking to some gardai earlier, they believe that Callinan is still culpable for his actions whilst commissioner despite his retirement and that it may be possible for him to be fined.
He is also personally named in McCabes legal action against the state.

I'm pretty sure the Garda Síochána Act introduced personal liability for members when the state is being sued due to their actions.

Water John

But Callinan and Taylor were breaking the law. A Company Director is personally liable if there knowingly breaking the law. The State cannot and shouldn't cover them. However, they are mostly, men of straw, so the civil settlement will largely come from the State.

Seth Brundle

Is this the latest on Garda liability whthin our laws...?
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2005/act/20/section/48/enacted/en/html#sec48
if so, then I see it that the members (Callinan and Taylor) are covered by the state.

Water John

Section 48 there indicates the Sate can join them into the action as defendants.
Questionable also as to whether they were acting, in their duties.

Captain Obvious

Seth Brundle wrote: »

Is this the latest on Garda liability whthin our laws...?
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2005/act/20/section/48/enacted/en/html#sec48
if so, then I see it that the members (Callinan and Taylor) are covered by the state.

Subsection 3 allows for them to be named and for the state to recoup compensation from them.

McMurphy

I wouldn't hold my breath on either this or any future govt pursuing Callinan or Taylor for compensation recoup.


Privy to too many secrets I would imagine.

RustyNut

Captain Obvious wrote: »

Subsection 3 allows for them to be named and for the state to recoup compensation from them.

Has that ever happened in the history of the state.

Captain Obvious

RustyNut wrote: »

Has that ever happened in the history of the state.

You'd have to ask someone involved in compensation cases. I've only heard of it happening anecdotally.

Seth Brundle

Does any other country reward dishonesty?
Supt David Taylor in line for €100,000 lump sum on retirement