The Garda Síochána Ombudsman Commission (GSOC) lacks independence and cannot conduct effective investigations because it was so poorly designed, according to a senior official who resigned from the organisation last week.
Ray Leonard, deputy director of investigations at GSOC since 2007, surprised colleagues by tendering his resignation last Saturday.
A former investigator with the Revenue Commissioners, he was responsible for the day-to-day management of all criminal investigations in GSOC and supervision of all disciplinary inquiries.
In an unpublished personal submission to the Oireachtas justice committee in May, Mr Leonard was sharply critical of the legislation underpinning GSOC, saying the body was “not an ombudsman in the ordinary meaning” and lacked real independence.
He was due to give a presentation at the committee in May but this did not go ahead. It is understood GSOC did not give Mr Leonard clearance to address the committee.
Expressing frustration at GSOC’s progress, Mr Leonard wrote that he took the job in the hope and expectation that he would assist in “the betterment of policing in Ireland... and to strengthen the Garda force for which I have enormous affection and respect”.
However, he had come to the view “that this is not possible under the current regime, and that my achievement of those goals over the last seven years has been negligible”.
Personal capacity
Mr Leonard stressed his comments were made in a personal capacity “as a citizen of the State with both an interest, and relevant experience, in the area”.
In his submission he described the Garda Síochána Act 2005 as “a poor piece of legislation” that seriously inhibited GSOC’s work.
As a result the organisation lacked effective independence and was “precluded” from carrying out effective investigations.
Mr Leonard said the law purported to give GSOC’s designated officers the same powers as members of An Garda but the legislation was set out in such a way that made practical interpretation “nigh unintelligible” and left the body vulnerable to legal challenges.
He claimed the act was internally contradictory, with the need for GSOC to report to the Garda commissioner and the Minister for Justice “at odds” with the independence envisaged elsewhere in the legislation.
‘Oversight’
Mr Leonard wrote that there had been “numerous instances” where senior Garda members, in their dealings with GSOC, had resisted external input while citing the absence of the word “oversight” in the Act.
“While GSOC is referred to colloquially as an oversight body, in fact its objectives and functions are silent on this role,” he wrote.
The Act states that a complaint of alleged misbehaviour against a garda “may” be made to GSOC. According to Mr Leonard, the use of the word “may” had allowed the Garda to investigate complaints that it would rather deal with internally.
“Senior Garda members have argued that the use of the word ‘may’ envisages that a complainant may not wish for GSOC to investigate their complaint,” he wrote.
“This argument has been used by the Garda Síochána to investigate a number of complaints of a sensitive nature to the exclusion of GSOC.”
He told the committee that an oversight body that could have oversight circumvented when it suited the body being overseen “has no true effectiveness and cannot properly meet its objectives”.
On the organisation itself, he said there was insufficient work at the strategic level to justify the full-time employment of three members, particularly given the pressure on public finances. “The current structure does not represent value for money,” he wrote.
At its meeting on Tuesday the Cabinet approved terms for a draft law to strengthen GSOC with new powers, including the right to investigate any alleged criminal conduct by a Garda commissioner.
