The statement by Minister of Justice Michael McDowell over the arrest of journalist Mick McCaffrey.
"On Friday 28 July last Mr George Birmingham SC presented me with his report in relation to Dean Lyons - the first under the new Commission of Investigation legislation - at the Department of Justice.
To allow time for printing of the report and to allow Mr Birmingham, who was about to go abroad on holiday, to brief the family of the late Dean Lyons on its content simultaneously with its publication, it was agreed that the report would be published on 1 September 2006.
On the morning of 10 August 2006, my Department's Press Office received a phone call from a journalist in the Evening Herald indicating that he had a copy of the report and seeking confirmation that the report was finalised.
On the advice of a senior official, the Department's Press Office drew the attention of the journalist to section 37 and section 50 of the Commission of Investigation Act 2004 as there was a possibility that the Evening Heraldmight be committing an offence as being an accomplice to a person contravening section 37 in publishing any material.
A number of articles purporting to include quotes from Mr Birmingham's report did appear in the Evening Herald on 10 August. The text of the Evening Heraldarticles were checked against the text of the final report and in at least one of the quotations, the article in the Heraldappeared to follow the wording of the draft report and not the wording of the final report. This was a cause of great concern to the officials in my Department.
Section 34 of the Commission of Investigation Act requires that a draft report or relevant extract be sent by the Commission to any person named in the report so that they can submit observations, seek amendments or apply to court to ensure that their constitutional rights are not infringed. It is an offence for a person who has received such material from the commission to divulge such material in any way.
The Dean Lyons report was the first report prepared under the 2004 Act which was intended to provide a speedier and more cost effective mechanism than Tribunals of Inquiry. The Commission's investigation was completed in less than 6 months and with great economy. There was a real danger that if the provisions of the Act were to be flouted without sanction, the whole mechanism could be undermined.
Mr Birmingham, who was out of the country at the time, was contacted to confirm that he had not given any written consent under section 37 of the Act to disclosure of the draft report and to ascertain his views about a possible criminal investigation. He confirmed that no consent had been given to disclose the contents and that he was in favour of an investigation.
The Commission staff has since confirmed that those persons who were sent the draft report were informed that it was a criminal offence to make it public.
Under section 43 of the Commissions of Investigation Act 2004, the Commission was legally dissolved on the submission of its final report to the Minister in July 2006 and therefore the Commission itself could not pursue the matter.
As the Commission no longer existed, the Secretary General of my Department decided to make a formal complaint seeking an investigation by the Garda Síochána into the matter. He advised me by phone of his intention to do this. I was on a family holiday at the time. He made it clear to me that his decision was not being submitted to me for any form of approval or consent. He further advised that it would be both unnecessary and inappropriate for me to be involved in any way in this decision.
The Secretary General contacted a Deputy Commissioner of An Garda Síochána to make the complaint verbally. This was followed up by a formal letter issued on 14 August 2004 setting out the situation insofar as it was known to the Department. The complaint related to a potential breach of the Commissions of Investigation Act in that it appeared probable that the draft report of the Commission had been disclosed - it was not a complaint about the publication of the material or the work of the journalist as the journalist was not one of those who had been sent the draft report by the Commission.
While the Department has fully cooperated with the Garda inquiry and a number of staff were interviewed over time, the conduct of the inquiry is a matter solely within the competence of the Garda Síochána who have not received any direction or been in any consultation whatever with the Department as to the progress of the investigation at any point prior to yesterday's arrests.
As I said in the Dáil this morning, I myself took no part in the decision to make a complaint, in the Garda investigation or in the decision of the Gardaí to make arrests yesterday."
I know, like and respect Michael McCaffrey whom I have met in the course of his work as a crime correspondent and deputy editor in the Evening Herald. I have met him on a number of occasions in a social and professional context. I bear him no ill will whatever. I have always found him to be a fair minded, hardworking and decent journalist.
In view of the foregoing I would like to make the following points:
- I did not cause directly or indirectly any complaint to be made to An Garda Síochána.
- I did not have any hand, act or part in the Garda investigation or the arrests of any persons.
- I bear no ill will to any person who was arrested in this matter and was wholly unaware that any arrests were contemplated.
- Comments to the effect that I had any involvement are completely untrue.
I also wish to add that I stand over all of the actions and decisions made by the officials of my Department in this matter.