Ombudsman commission will create an effective system to deal with complaints, writes Conor Brady
From midnight on May 8th, the Garda Síochána Ombudsman Commission (GSOC) will be responsible for investigating complaints concerning the conduct of members of the Garda Síochána.
Ireland will join a relatively small number of common law jurisdictions in which complaints may be investigated or supervised not by the police themselves but by an independent body with de facto police powers.
GSOC has aimed for an initial staffing complement of about 100 people, of whom about one-half would be investigators and case officers, with the remainder providing back-up and specialised services.
It has to date secured sanction to recruit a total of 81 staff members, but hopes in time to secure sanction that will enable it to have four teams of investigators rather than the two teams which will be available at the start-up phase.
The main office will be in Upper Abbey Street, Dublin, with regional offices to be set up in Roscrea and Longford.
The ombudsman commissioners are High Court judge, Kevin Haugh; the former director of Consumer Affairs, Carmel Foley and the present writer. We are appointed by the President, on the vote of the Houses of the Oireachtas and on the nomination of the Government. Our initial term of office is for six years.
Our "designated officers", who will conduct investigations, come from a variety of backgrounds and nationalities. All have experience in aspects of criminal justice, investigations or the law.
The Garda Síochána Act 2005 sets two objectives for the commission: to create a system to investigate complaints against gardaí that is effective, efficient and fair to all concerned and to promote public confidence in that system.
The commission is required to report annually to the Oireachtas. Its accountability is to the Oireachtas itself rather than to a Minister or to Government.
The advent of GSOC will present the Garda with new realities. The commission is conscious that, as much as the Act requires us to promote public confidence in the new system, it is also necessary that the gardaí themselves buy fully into it.
During the year in which we have been preparing for start-up, GSOC has consulted extensively among stakeholders in the new processes.
We have found a widespread desire for change among the Garda and we have had excellent co-operation both from Garda management and from the various staff associations.
Many gardaí will acknowledge that the force's credibility has suffered through tribunal findings, various courts proceedings and a succession of controversial incidents.
Yet there are some gardaí who do not seem fully to appreciate the extent of public disquiet. These officers often feel that there is insufficient appreciation of the difficulties gardaí face in their job.
They often feel that Garda management and the disciplinary code are too harsh on members. They have many criticisms, being mainly about poor equipment, cumbersome procedures and inadequate resources. These are not always unfounded.
The commission thus has to put in place processes that can restore the confidence of the general public in the accountability of the Garda while at the same time, persuading gardaí themselves that credible, independently-monitored accountability is in their own interest.
In seeking to do this, the commission has been guided by a number of clear principles. While not being uncritical of the Garda Síochána, it has stressed its impartiality, its independence and its commitment to the search for truth.
It has sought to create a system for handling complaints that will be as simplified, effective and efficient as possible.
Its processes will aim to be proportionate to the various issues with which it is presented. It will seek to avoid the creation of "paper mountains" and it will aim to shorten proceedings which, in the past, have dragged on for far too long, to the detriment of both the general public and of gardaí against whom complaints have been lodged.
The Act enables the commission to issue guidelines to informally resolve or to provide mediation in certain categories of complaints.
After extensive consultation, such guidelines are now ready to be issued. The commission is confident that a great number of complaints can be resolved swiftly and satisfactorily through these processes.
Of course, the commission has considerable powers of enforcement. But it is our hope that much of our work will be by way of persuasion, guidance and encouragement, while raising awareness of each individual's legal and human rights.
The success of civilian oversight of police should not necessarily be measured by counting the numbers of criminal prosecutions or disciplinary proceedings.
Higher standards and greater awareness of legal and human rights will hopefully follow on from the GSOC coming into operation.
The numbers of actual prosecutions that arise out of the work of the Northern Ireland Police Ombudsman, Nuala O'Loan, and the Independent Police Complaints Commission in England and Wales are very small.
One measure of success in the future may well be the paucity of prosecutions - hopefully reflecting raised standards of police behaviour and better self-regulation within the police structure.
Criminal prosecutions of police officers are notoriously difficult. They swallow up resources and they are sometimes counter-productive.
The chief executive of the Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland, Sam Pollock, acknowledged as much when he spoke at a Labour Party conference in Dublin in February.
There are rarely any winners in such proceedings. Police credibility is deeply damaged when officers give contradictory evidence against each other under oath, or when they declare themselves unable to recall under oath what may have happened in a given situation.
(When I expressed views along these lines on RTÉ a while ago, some gardaí said I was arguing against the right of gardaí to trial by judge and jury. In law and in logic, I could not have suggested anything such. But there may be better ways, in many instances, of dealing with the linked issues of police behaviour and public confidence than through the full panoply of a criminal trial.)
Ultimately, the commission can detain, question, search, arrest and take evidential samples from persons. We can search Garda stations, seize vehicles, firearms and other items.
In appropriate cases, we will operate these powers, if required, to the full. And if there is evidence of an offence, we will prepare a file for the Director of Public Prosecutions, who will then decide if a criminal prosecution is to be commenced.
But for dealing with lesser issues that may not amount to criminal behaviour, there should be a graduated system that is more akin to the ordinary employer/employee template. The new Garda Disciplinary Regulations, currently being formulated, would seem to be pointing in this direction too.
The commission is without bias. It is neither for nor against gardaí. It is neither for nor against complainants. Its mission will be to seek truth, by securing evidence, lawfully obtained.
It recognises that the vast majority of gardaí aim to discharge their responsibilities in an honourable and professional manner. But there are significant issues of public confidence in play at this time and it is the duty of the commission, under the Act, to address these.
This State's tradition is one of policing by consent of the people. True consent requires to be grounded in trust and confidence.
The advent of the commission will hopefully mark a regeneration of these qualities in the relationship between the Garda and the general public.
Conor Brady is one of the three commissioners of the Garda Síochána Ombudsman Commission. He was editor of The Irish Times from 1986 to 2002