"You know quite well that the Commissioner could not provide you with an internal Garda report," stated Supt John Farrelly of the Garda Press and Public Relations Office in a letter to me last week. This was a response to a request to see a copy of the report of Assistant Commissioner Kevin Carty into a very curious happening at Lucan Garda station on the night of October 17/18, 1996.
On that night, the Garda has maintained, one of the suspects in the Veronica Guerin murder investigation made a verbal admission of involvement in her murder. The admission would have represented a sensational breakthrough in the investigation.
One would have expected the investigating gardai, especially those at the hub of the investigation at Lucan Garda station, to have been excited by the breakthrough and for news of the development to have spread like wildfire among the investigating officers.
But nothing like that apparently happened. Although a number of senior Garda officers, we are told by Supt Farrelly, were informed, news of the breakthrough did not extend to the teams of interrogating officers who took over the interviewing of Paul Ward the next morning.
As Supt Farrelly's letter states: "While senior officers of the investigation were made aware on the night of the 17th October of the verbal admission, the [8.00 a.m - 9.30 a.m.] team [of the following morning] were not informed, nor was the team of 9.30 a.m. - 10.50 a.m."
In the course of their evidence to the Special Criminal Court in the Paul Ward case, the interrogating officers stated that they made contemporaneous notes of the interview in the course of which the admissions were made and that these notes were kept at Lucan Garda station.
This very peculiar circumstance led Mr Justice Robert Barr, of the Special Criminal Court, to observe: "This indicates either incredible disorganisation in the murder investigation, despite the fact there was a continuously manned incident room at Lucan Garda station, or there was no memorandum of the [Garda] interview [during which the "admissions" were made] at the time and it came into existence later."
In evidence during the Paul Ward trial, the officers who interrogated Ward on the night of October 17th, 1996, said the memorandum of their interview with him was contemporaneous with the interview.
Following the observations of the court, the Garda Commissioner, Pat Byrne, arranged for one of the assistant commissioners, Kevin Carty, to undertake an inquiry into the affair. Two weeks ago I asked the Commissioner, via the Garda Press Office, what the outcome of the Kevin Carty inquiry was. I was told it was none of my business and, by inference, none of the public's business.
I pointed out that it was indeed the business of the public if either there had been incredible disorganisation in the most intensive murder investigation in many years or, alternatively, if Garda officers had given sworn evidence that was untrue. I also acknowledged that the Special Criminal Court could have got it all wrong, in which case we should be told that too.
Again I was told it was none of my business. Again I asked to be allowed see the Kevin Carty report on the grounds that the public was entitled to know the outcome of an inquiry that was of such crucial importance to the credibility of the Garda.
This occasioned the letter referred to at the beginning of the column. No, I could not see the report. I had asked them to explain their reasoning if they were to refuse to let me see the report. The response was: "I think you know quite well that the Commissioner could not provide you with an internal Garda report, so the answer to your question [regarding the reason for such refusal] is superfluous."
I did not know either quite well or at all why the Commissioner could not provide me with an internal Garda report; indeed, I know quite well that he could. I also know why he will not provide me with the report: clearly it is because the report would prove embarrassing for the Garda.
Embarrassing, either because the report is not up to much (and I do not intend any reflection on the competence of Kevin Carty) or because the report is up to much and reveals information about the investigation and/or the trial of Paul Ward that would undermine the credibility of the Garda.
It might be suggested that the report cannot be published for security reasons. If that is the case, why does the Commissioner not say so?
Supt Farrelly's letter also revealed that, following the completion of the Kevin Carty inquiry, a working group was set up to examine the breakdown in communications at Lucan Garda station in October 1996. From all of this some further questions arise:
Who were the senior officers of the investigation that were informed of the "verbal admission" on the evening of October 17th, 1996?
What did the Carty report establish as the reason for the failure of these senior officers to inform the interrogation teams the following morning of the breakthrough?
Why was the explanation for this surprising failure of communications contained in the Carty report not offered in evidence to the Special Criminal Court in the course of the trial of Paul Ward?
What were the terms of reference of the inquiry of Assistant Commissioner Kevin Carty?
What are the terms of reference of this working group, when was it established, has it reported yet and, if so, what are its findings?
What operating changes have been made to the procedures in relation to such investigations arising from the report of Assistant Commissioner Carty?
Having stalled on every question I had asked, Supt Farrelly had the gall to respond to these questions: write: "We have facilitated you as much as possible in relation to these matters." It is obvious that something very strange went on in the investigation of the murder of Veronica Guerin and it is obvious that the Garda authorities do not want the details known.
vbrowne@irish-times.ie