The sub-committee investigating the Abbeylara shooting yesterday accepted that a question mark hung over the inquiry, following the request by nine Emergency Response Unit members for exemptions from giving evidence.
The inquiry into the fatal shooting of Mr John Carthy by two ERU members on April 20th, 2000, was adjourned yesterday until at least June 1st, following the ERU application.
The committee chairman, Mr Sean Ardagh, said it would be difficult for the inquiry to continue without the "vital" ERU evidence. "We don't feel it would be right or proper for us to continue to hear evidence unless members of the ERU were also able to give evidence."
The inquiry knew it was a possibility that the ERU members would seek exemptions from giving evidence, but "we were hopeful it would not happen. Unfortunately it has happened," he said.
The application for exemptions, which was signalled on Friday, will be examined by the secretary to the Government, Mr Dermot McCarthy, of the Taoiseach's office. Even if he gives a decision within 30 days, the inquiry cannot resume until that period has elapsed.
Mr Ardagh said the inquiry could not continue in the meantime because it could hear evidence which could affect the good names of the ERU members, "and thus their constitutional rights would be interfered with because they would not have opportunity to answer any allegations by giving direct evidence."
The sub-committee understood that the decision would disappoint many people. "We share the feeling," he said. Mr Ardagh said the committee was surprised to receive notice of the officers' application as the Chief State Solicitor had accepted that the witnesses would give evidence in public.
The sub-committee was sympathetic to the ERU members' anxieties about being publicly identified, he said, and was consulting technical and administrative personnel to see how the matter could be dealt with. Screens to shield their identity was one possibility.
Mr John Rogers SC, for the nine ERU members, told the inquiry on Friday that his clients feared their evidence might prejudice or impair the prevention, detection or investigation of offences or the apprehension or prosecution of offenders.
There were terse exchanges between Mr Rogers and Mr Ardagh yesterday, following Mr Ardagh's refusal to allow Mr Rogers to address the inquiry before the adjournment. "It was my clients' wish that I would say something on their behalf at this moment. But regrettably, sir, you left your chair so quickly that I wasn't able to intervene," Mr Rogers said.
"The matter is now adjourned, Mr Rogers," Mr Ardagh replied and left the room. Mr Rogers had earlier asked why he still had not received the amendment order which gave the committee the power to broaden their terms of reference. "The secretariat are now pulling all of those matters together, and you will have them very shortly," Mr Ardagh said.
