Former minister for state Trevor Sargent wrote to a Garda superintendent as late as February 15th in connection with the criminal prosecution of one of his constitutents, it has emerged.
Mr Sargent’s representations, which he accepted were an error of judgment, ultimately led to his resignation yesterday.
The Evening Herald newspaper today published details of a letter from Mr Sargent's office at the Department of Agriculture sent to Superintendent Joe Kelly at Balbriggan Garda station in north Dublin and dated February 15th last.
Referring to “previous correspondence” in connection with the prosecution of Dominic McGowan, Mr Sargent said: “Dear Joe, I refer to our previous correspondence regarding Mr McGowan. I would be grateful if you could keep an eye on this case as I fear for the safety of Mr McGowan who faces his attacker in court again in the Central Criminal Court this Friday, 19th February 2010 (Court No 16) as a witness to his own attack in September 2007.”
Mr Sargent has said the details of the case only "came back" to him after earlier representations he made in the case were revealed in the Evening Herald yesterday.
He also said he had tried to deal with the case in a “low-key” manner, by initially contacting the garda involved in the prosecution.
Speaking in the Dáil last night, Mr Sargent outlined the circumstances of the clinic inquiry he received in June 2008 relating to an alleged assault in September 2007.
He said a victim of an assault had come to him “to voice his frustration at the slow progress being made with the case, where he alleged he had been head-butted when, as he told me, he had reported vandalism to parents of a child he had seen trying to remove a road sign in their housing estate”.
Mr Sargent said his intention was to “ensure the Garda was aware I had received representation from a victim in an alleged assault and that the full preparation of the case would benefit from witnesses not yet interviewed, being interviewed before proceeding further”.
“The victim, meanwhile, was afraid for his personal safety and showed the evidence of the assault on his face.”
He said he accepted that, although his actions in contacting the Garda were not a criminal offence, that such a communication “could be deemed not lawful”.
He accepted he had made “an error of judgment” and tendered his resignation as junior minister.
Speaking on RTÉ's News at One today, Mr Sargent said he did not believe the matter would have an impact on the life and the duration of the Government.
“I don’t see that, to be honest. There’s an old saying that we sometimes hear that what doesn’t kill you makes you stronger. I think these are tests along the way that actually test the trust and the working relationship between the two parties and I think they are found to be strong and focused on the job of government.”
He said that what had "come back" to him when he heard about the Evening Herald report yesterday, was the detail of the case which was printed in the original letter he had sent to the garda.
Following that letter, he had received a call from the superintendent “essentially advising" him that it would normally be the case that if someone were to contact the station in relation to a matter, it should be done through the superintendent directly.
The February 15th letter arose after the constituent in question came to his clinic again.
"He was afraid that his appearance in court, if he didn’t feel protected, would be a risk to his safety and it was in that context that I thought it advisable to let the Superintendent know of his concerns for his safety.”
Mr Sargent said he was dealing with "many, many constituency queries" and the detail of a particular case such as this "wouldn’t be at the top of my mind".
"Obviously if somebody reminded me of it, I would recall."
He had told the individual concerned he should see a solicitor, but the man was "expressing his frustration" that he did not feel he or his solicitor were being listened to, that the case was "not properly prepared" and that the witnesses he had referred to "had not all been interviewed".
Mr Sargent said he felt the "seriousness of the case . . . required a gentle reminder" to the garda in question that the information he had been presented with "might just be helpful".
"Of course I now realise that that is actually in breach of Section 6 of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1974. I would have to have been a social worker to do that, or a family member, or a doctor, or a witness or another solicitor, and that is all very clear, and I hope every TD takes note of that from here on.”
Mr Sargent said he would be “very surprised” if there were further letters to be published. He indicated he hadn't pursued the issue further after he got "a flea in the ear" from the superintendent.
On the question of where the leak of the correspondence had come from, Mr Sargent said: "I have no suspicion about conspiracy theories or leaks in this regard."
He said he did not know exactly what the chronology of the information getting into the public domain was, except that it could "very easily, probably very unspectacularly and in a probably quite mundane way" have resulted from papers being left lying around in a crowded court.