Sir, – I refer to the somewhat odd commentary contained in Miriam Lord’s report in her Saturday column of Taoiseach Leo Varadkar’s reference to me in the Dáil on July 12th. The Taoiseach was reported as stating:
“In May 2014, a report of the government established non-statutory inquiry – the Guerin report – was published and was critical of Mr Shatter’s conduct as minister for justice and equality. The Government acknowledges that Alan Shatter’s conduct as minister was subsequently vindicated by the O’Higgins commission in its report, which was published in May 2016. Moreover, in legal proceedings that culminated in a decision of the Supreme Court in February 2019, it was found that Mr Shatter had not been afforded fair procedures in the course of the inquiry. Certainly, in my view, Mr Shatter was not fairly treated by an organ of the State. I want to acknowledge that in the chamber today.”
Your columnist then correctly quoted my expressing disappointment in December 2020 at the failure of then-taoiseach Micheál Martin “to publicly apologise and acknowledge the damage wrongly inflicted on my reputation” by the Guerin report when informing the Dáil of the redaction from it of conclusions irrefutably found to be wrongly critical of my conduct when minister for justice.
Continuing, she correctly commented that on Wednesday I “didn’t get that apology” and wrongly asserted that the Taoiseach’s statement “made no reference to the Guerin Report but at least Alan now knows that Leo thinks he was unfairly treated”.
From Blair and Clinton to civil servants in the shadows, archive papers reveal scale of peace push
JFK’s four days in Ireland among happiest of his life, his father told De Valera
‘Buying the bank seemed daring’: how one couple transformed a rural bank branch into a home and business
Megan Nolan: A conversation with a man in his late 30s made clear the realities of this new era in my dating life
Miriam Lord’s commentary is odd as clearly she reported the Taoiseach expressly referencing both the Guerin inquiry and the Guerin report and for good measure Mr Guerin was depicted by the Supreme Court as acting as “an organ of the State”.
The Taoiseach’s statement on Wednesday is the first detailed public acknowledgement by a Taoiseach or any member of Government of what occurred in 2014 derived from the conclusions of both the O’Higgins Commission Report in 2016 and the Supreme Court in 2019. It is important because the now discredited Guerin critique, which was widely perceived as validating false charges made against me by opposition politicians, various sections of the media, and others, was in 2014 embraced by both government and opposition. It was also defended all the way to the Supreme Court from 2016 to 2019, despite the O’Higgins Commission report irrefutably contradicting Guerin’s personally damaging narrative. Up to now successive governments have chosen to substantially ignore that I was seriously wronged and my reputation gravely damaged.
In December last the government rightly apologised to Dónal de Róiste within months of a senior counsel concluding that when required to resign from the Defence Forces many years earlier he had been denied due process. Just a few weeks ago the Garda Commissioner rightly apologised to former minister for state Pat Carey for the damage done to his reputation by his disgraceful treatment by members of an Garda Síochána. Such apologies are given by governments on behalf of the State to those seriously wronged by the State or its organs. It is what distinguishes the values of democracies from autocracies and signals the Government’s and the State’s respect for the rule of law. It is a practice of substantial importance and in the public interest.
An acknowledgement by a Taoiseach that a person was “not fairly treated by an organ of the State” would in the normal course result in an apology on behalf of the State. In my case, it seems I am deemed by some in Government to have less rights than other citizens of the State and to be unworthy of receiving an apology. I believe such discrimination demands some public explanation.
An apology requires a decision of Government and is not for the Taoiseach alone to give. Within the current Coalition Government it is, I assume, a very particular matter to be agreed between the party leaders.
The Taoiseach’s belief that I was not treated fairly by an organ of the State is based on the factual conclusions of the O’Higgins commission report and judgments of the Supreme Court. The reality is that there is no factual basis for Micheál Martin, Eamon Ryan or any other member of Cabinet having any alternative belief. If the French government in a different century, when anti-Semitism was deeply embedded in French public life, could find the decency to apologise to Alfred Dreyfus perhaps the Irish Government before going on summer vacation could find the decency to address this issue and do what is right? It is not complicated. – Yours, etc,
ALAN SHATTER,
Dublin 16.