Labour leader Pat Rabbitte claimed that the integrity of the criminal prosecution system was under question, following the abandonment of the planned retrial of the Dermot Laide for the manslaughter of Brian Murphy.
Mr Rabbitte said that former State pathologist Prof John Harbison, who was unavailable for the trial because of illness, had a statement attributed to him in March 2003. Prof Harbison had said at the time that the Government had decided from January Ist that he was not to examine any more new bodies, "but I am still working and I am still the State pathologist".
Mr Rabbitte added: "The facts now give rise to profound questions about the integrity of our criminal prosecution system and the duty of the Government to maintain that integrity.
"I want to know when the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Mr McDowell, knew about [Prof Harbison's] infirmity I referred to and when he put the DPP in possession of all that he knew."
Mr Rabbitte asked how many postmortems or trials might have to be reviewed as a result of the case. "Was he told at the time that the past as well as future competence of the former State pathologist may be open to question?"
Taoiseach Bertie Ahern said he did not know when Prof Harbison's illness came to light. "I do not know whether the cases he had dealt with were considered to be perfect when he retired."
Earlier, Mr Ahern said that he would bring questions asked to the attention of the Minister, and insisted that Ministers had no role in the investigation or prosecution of cases.
"The role of the Garda is to investigate alleged offences, and to gather whatever evidence they can, and that goes to the Director of Public Prosecutions. The question of whether an individual should be prosecuted for a criminal offence is the responsibility of the DPP.
"The Minister said he will hold talks with the DPP to see whether ways exist through which evidence for use in trials can be preserved in advance."
Mr Rabbitte accused Mr Ahern of dodging his questions, adding that he should not pretend to the House that he would not be given a detailed note from the Department of Justice to deal with such a serious question.
"We all know the rules about the separation of offices. The issue arising from the unfortunate Anabel's case pertains not only to that case but also to the capacity of the then State pathologist to conduct postmortems around and about that time and to give evidence in those trials."
He asked if they could expect more cases, in which convictions were open to challenge, as a result of what had happened.
Mr Ahern said the only person who could answer that question was the DPP.
Mr Rabbitte said the Minister was responsible for the provision of expert forensic evidence.
Mr Ahern replied: "I ask the deputy not to try to confuse what is clear in law If somebody challenges or appeals a case, or if the DPP decides not to proceed with a case, that is a matter entirely for the DPP."
