Sir, – The conclusion of the Smithwick Tribunal that Garda officers colluded in the murder of Chief Supt Harry Breen and Supt Bob Buchanan is deeply disturbing. If it is true that one or more members of An Garda Síochána (the guardians of the peace) colluded with the IRA in the murders of Supts Breen and Buchanan then not only are they guilty of murder but they let down an entire police force.
Unfortunately there are now unionist politicians who remained silent or indeed excused compelling evidence of collusion in the North over the years but are delighted to rush to the media to smear the entire Garda Síochána and that is not only unjustified but it must not be allowed to happen.
Garda officers, many of them now retired, were stationed in the Border areas during the best part of their lives to protect life and limb. Is history now to be rewritten, as it often is, to misrepresent those officers as villains involved in collusion leading to the murder of police officers in the North? I should think not!
During the period from the 1970s to the 1990s the Republic of Ireland, with very limited resources, spent more per head of population on security than the British did, much of it in the Border areas. Often Garda stations on the southern side of the Border had more manpower than their counterparts on the Northern side and they worked for a fraction of the salary their RUC counterparts but they did it not for money but to protect the lives of people. They were noble officers who were not influenced by the IRA or any other illegal organisation. Is this now to be dismissed because there may have been one or perhaps more rotten apples in the barrel?
Like police forces all over the world the Garda have had their problems and the need for reform, but they do not deserve the kind of abuse which is now emanating from the usual suspects who ignored, dismissed or excused widespread collusion in the North but now want to present themselves as the voice of perfection ignoring the fact that Garda officers made a massive contribution to limiting the number of people who may otherwise have died in those days of total madness. – Yours, etc,
JOHN DALLAT,
SDLP MLA East Derry,
Northern Ireland Assembly
Stormont, Belfast.
Sir, – I can't understand why Tánaiste Eamon Gilmore is apologising on behalf of the people of Ireland for failings regarding these murders (Breaking News, December 4th). While I am very sorry about the murders of these two fine police officers Buchanan and Breen, I would like to point out that I'm one of the "people of Ireland", but I certainly had nothing to do with any of this.
Let the blame fall where it should – with successive governments, with Garda mismanagement and with those named and unnamed who may have further questions to answer – but certainly not the people of Ireland! – Yours, etc,
JAMES NEILL,
North Circular Road,
Limerick.
Sir, – The day after the Smithwick report is published, the Sinn Féin leader weighs in with his size 15 jackboots (Breaking News, December 4th). According to Gerry Adams, the two RUC officers who were murdered by the IRA in 1989 were essentially asking for it. They were, it seems, swanning about South Armagh with scant regard for their own safety. They might as well have painted crosshairs on the car. The insinuation is they got what they deserved. I find Mr Adams's comments beyond belief. He should be utterly ashamed. – Yours, etc,
DAVID WILKINS,
Vevay Road,
Bray, Co Wicklow.
Sir, – It is highly questionable whether the sensational media headlines of Garda collusion in the murders of Chief Supt Breen and Supt Buchanan are justified. Several key points need to be borne in mind.
1. A tribunal of inquiry, even when chaired by a judge, is not a court of law. It is not a criminal trial leading to a verdict that someone is or is not guilty of collusion. It is merely an inquiry into the facts surrounding an incident or event.
2. A tribunal is not bound by the tried and tested rules on the admissibility of evidence applicable in a criminal trial.
3. A tribunal reaches conclusions on the facts by applying the 51/49 standard of whether something was more likely than not, rather than the criminal standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Its findings, therefore, cannot always be relied upon as a definitive statement of what actually happened.
4. The Smithwick Tribunal adopted a broad interpretation of what amounts to collusion, and proceeded on the dangerous assumption that silence was indicative of having something to hide.
Despite all these factors, the tribunal was not able to conclude that any identifiable member of the Garda actually colluded with the IRA in the murders. When placed in that context the sensationalist headlines lose their punch. – Yours, etc,
Prof DERMOT WALSH,
Kent Law School,
University of Kent,
Canterbury, England.
Sir, – I write in response to the Smithwick report, key parts of which I have perused with great interest as a specialist in forensic linguistics and legal language.
I believe there may be some controversy regarding Judge Peter Smithwick’s definition of collusion, and a criticism that he has perhaps drawn its frame of reference too widely. However, the law is a living thing, embodied in the lives of the people whom it affects, not a dry academic textbook where definitions must always be cast in concrete. Therefore, to adapt the term “collusion” to the peculiar circumstances then in existence in the island of Ireland, is both judicially creative and administratively necessary. Defining collusion, as the learned judge has, as “action or inaction by an individual or the police [or some other arm of the state]” is thus, in my view, absolutely appropriate. Moreover, it sits well in all legal frameworks, whether civil or common, where an act of omission is as justiciable as an act of commission.
I know this inquiry has been criticised because of its great cost and length, but the depth of detail and the immense rigour with which it has been conducted has surely made it worthwhile. Furthermore, the judge is to be complimented on what is effectively a masterclass in judicial independence. He has shown neither fear nor favour, whether dealing with powerful state organs or private individuals. All great judges, whether in Ireland or elsewhere, share this characteristic of fierce independence and for this reason Judge Smithwick deserves the highest recognition. – Yours, etc,
Dr JOHN OLSSON,
School of Linguistics,
Bangor University,
College Road,
Bangor, Wales.
Sir, – I note in your report (December 4th) that the Smithwick Tribunal will cost €15 million. That is the salaries of 100 circuit court judges for a full year. Have we learnt nothing from the past? – Yours, etc,
JONATHON ROTH (Dr)
Clancys Strand,
Limerick.