The senior Garda officer who conducted an internal Garda investigation into the shooting of Mr John Carthy has defended his decision not to include in his final report details of a conflict of evidence. This occurred between gardai and the State pathologist, Dr John Harbison.
Chief Supt Adrian Culligan said that when he laid the evidence of gardai and Dr Harbison side by side, it did not pose any conflict for him. The conflict, he said, emerged at the inquest into Mr Carthy's death.
Dr Harbison referred in his report to the possibility that Mr Carthy might have been "bending or falling forward" when he was struck by the fourth and final shot which killed him. This was based on the fact that the fourth shot entered his lower body and moved upwards, exiting through his chest.
Members of the Garda Emergency Response Unit (ERU) who shot Mr Carthy claimed that even after he was shot three times he continued to walk forward in a purposeful and menacing fashion and was therefore shot a fourth time.
Chief Supt Culligan said he and the investigation team "identified this particular problem in relation to the fourth shot" very early on. They discussed it with Prof Harbison and when they laid out the Garda testimony alongside Prof Harbison's, and took into consideration their knowledge of ballistics, the gradient on the road and the fact that the garda who fired the fourth shot was at a level underneath Mr Carthy, "the findings to my mind did not pose me at that particular stage any conflict".
He added that a bullet could be deflected upwards by bones in the body.
Sub-committee member Senator Denis O'Donovan said he was concerned that Prof Harbison's "very important sentence" was excluded. Chief Supt Culligan replied that he laid everything in front of the DPP. His report had to be read in conjunction with the statements taken by him but he had taken "some extracts out of it, relevant ones out of it" for the final Garda report. Asked by Mr Alan Shatter TD if, when he evaluated the operation, he felt the fourth shot was necessary, he said Mr Carthy was still moving forward after the third shot. The decision to fire it was a judgment call made by an officer to protect the lives of others. He said international experience had shown it was not impossible for a person to continue walking after being shot. He said ERU members never had an opportunity to crosscheck each other's statements. Asked if officers had discussed events before making their statements, he said: "I don't know. I would have a view that there was no collusion."