REFUSAL TO ISSUE GARDA REPORT IS NOT ACCEPTABLE

"You know quite well that the Commissioner could not provide you with
an internal Garda report," stated Supt John Farrelly of the Garda
Press and Public Relations Office in a letter to me last week. This
was a response to a request to see a copy of the report of Assistant
Commissioner Kevin Carty into a very curious happening at Lucan Garda
station on the night of October 17/18, 1996.

On that night, the i Garda has maintained, one of the suspects in the
Veronica Guerin murder investigation made a verbal admission of
involvement in her murder. The admission would have represented a
sensational breakthrough in the investigation.

One would have expected the investigating gardai, especially those at
the hub of the investigation at Lucan Garda station, to have been
excited by the breakthrough and for news of the development to have
spread like wildfire among the investigation officers.But nothing like that
apparently happened.

Although a number of senior Garda officers, we are told by Supt Farrelly,
were informed, news of the breakthrough did not extend to the teams
of interrogating officers who took over the interviewing of Paul Ward the next
morning. As Supt Farrelly's letter states, "While senior officers of the
investigation were made aware on the night of the 17th October of the
verbal admission, the [8.00 a.m - 9.30 a.m.] team [of the following
morning] were not informed, nor was the team of 9.30 a.m. - 10.50 a.m."
In the course of their evidence to the Special Criminal Court in the
Paul Ward case, the interrogating officers stated that they made
contemporaneous notes of the interview in the course of which the
admissions were made and that these notes were kept at Lucan Garda
station.

This very peculiar circumstance led Mr Justice Robert Barr, of the
Special Criminal Court, to observe: "This indicates either incredible
disorganisation in the murder investigation, despite the fact there
was a continuously manned incident room at Lucan Garda station, or
there was no memorandum of the [Garda] interview [during which the
"admissions" were made] at the time and it came into existence later."
In evidence during the Paul Ward trial, the officers who interrogated
Ward on the night of October 17th, 1996, said the memorandum of their
interview with him was contemporaneous with the interview.

Following the observations of the court, the Garda Commissioner, Pat
Byrne, arranged for one of the assistant commissioners, Kevin Carty,
to undertake an inquiry into the affair. Two weeks ago I asked the
Commissioner, via the Garda Press Office, what the outcome of the
Kevin Carty inquiry was. I was told it was none of my business and, by
inference, none of the public's business.

I pointed out that it was indeed the business of the public if either
there had been incredible disorganisation in the most intensive murder
investigation in many years or, alternatively, if Garda officers had
given sworn evidence that was untrue. I also acknowledged that the
Special Criminal Court could have got it all wrong, in which case we
should be told that too.

Again I was told it was none of my business. Again I asked to be
allowed see the Kevin Carty report on the grounds that the public was
entitled to know the outcome of an inquiry that was of such crucial
importance to the credibility of the Garda.

This occasioned the letter referred to at the beginning of the column.
No, I could not see the report. I had asked them to explain their
reasoning if they were to refuse to let me see the report. The
response was: "I think you know quite well that the Commissioner could
not provide you with an internal Garda report, so the answer to your
question [regarding the reason for such refusal] is
superfluous."

did not know either quite well or at all why the Commissioner could
not provide me with an internal Garda report; indeed, I know quite
well that he could. I also know why he will not provide me with the
report: clearly it is because the report would prove embarrassing for
the Garda.

Embarrassing, either because the report is not up to much (and I do
not intend any reflection on the competence of Kevin Carty) or because
the report is up to much and reveals information about the
investigation and/or the trial of Paul Ward that would undermine the
credibility of the Garda.

It might be suggested that the report cannot be published for security
reasons. If that is the case, why does the Commissioner not say so?
Supt Farrelly's letter also revealed that following the completion of
the Kevin Carty inquiry, a working group was set up to examine the
breakdown in communications at the Lucan Garda station in October
1996. From all of this some further questions arise:Who were the
senior officers of the investigation that were informed
of the "verbal admission" on the evening of October 17th, 1996?
What did the Carty report establish as the reason for the failure of
these senior officers to inform the interrogation teams the following
morning of the breakthrough?
Why was the explanation for this surprising failure of communications
contained in the Carty report not offered in evidence to the Special
Criminal Court in the course of the trial of Paul Ward?
What were the terms of reference of the inquiry of Assistant
Commissioner Kevin Carty?
What are the terms of reference of this working group, when was it
established, has it reported yet and, if so, what are its findings?
What operating changes have been made to the procedures in relation to
such investigations arising from the report of Assistant Commissioner
Carty?

Having stalled on every question I had asked, Supt Farrelly had the
gall to respond to these questions: "We have facilitated you as much
as possible in relation to these matters."

It is obvious that something very strange went on in the investigation
of the murder of Veronica Guerin and it is obvious that the Garda
authorities do not want the details known.