OPINION:The Morris tribunal's report shows that it was right to pass on allegations in confidence, writes Brendan Howlin
I READ with great care the views of John Waters on the outcome of the most recent Morris tribunal reports, specifically that ends cannot justify means, even for senior politicians (Opinion, October 10th). On the face of it, it seems a reasonable conclusion - ends never justify means. But in this case, what does that mean? Let us first examine the "ends".
The thousands of pages in the eight reports catalogue a series of unprecedented abuses by some gardaí. Irish citizens had their basic rights crushed to a degree that is scarcely believable.
One family in particular suffered years of harassment and abuse with devastating and ongoing consequences. The McBreartys, McConnells, Peoples, Gallaghers, Brollys, Shortts and many more had their lives turned upside down.
This terrible wrongdoing has been exposed and a significant start has been made in Garda reform with the establishment of the Garda Ombudsman Commission and the Garda Inspectorate - a significant "end" for a democratic society.
And what of the "means" Waters found unacceptable? The means was the giving, in confidence, of allegations of wrongdoing to the minister for justice. I never mentioned any garda's name in any public utterance. Waters agrees with Mr Justice Morris that Jim Higgins and I should have carried out "inquiries, interviews, correspondence or meetings in relation to the allegations made before taking them further".
This is the nub of it. Jim and I should have set up our own standard of required proof, and then set about our own inquiry to establish it. How this was to be done is not explained. It took the judge 6½ years, a team of full-time lawyers, the powers of compulsion and millions of euro to establish the facts.
Even if we were to embark on this exercise, the decision of the Supreme Court in the Abbeylara case places great constitutional restrictions on TDs' ability to inquire into a citizen's conduct. From a practicable point of view, the suggestion does not stand up.
But an even more challenging conclusion must come from Waters's comments. In this single instance, the information given to Jim and I regarding two senior gardaí was not true. Presumably, had it been true - as the bulk of the allegations received from the same source turned out to be - Jim and I would receive no criticism. The logic is that we should have known the outcome of the inquiry before we could legitimately seek to have it set up.
This is an important point. We gave the allegations in confidence to the then minister for justice, John O'Donoghue, in June 2000. He decided to have the matters investigated by the Garda through the Garda Commissioner. The Garda (then deputy commissioner Fachtna Murphy and Supt Pat Brehony) carried out that investigation.
Even so, the minister for justice included those allegations in the terms of reference for the tribunal almost two years later, in March 2002. He clearly - with the benefit of a Garda investigation and the legal officers of the State to advise him - thought it right to inquire further into these specific allegations. There is no criticism of the minister for this action.
The principle of end and means canvassed by Waters is not academic. People in the front line, including politicians, are called on to make realtime decisions where these matters are of the most serious kind. I am working with colleagues of all parties on the Joint Committee on the Constitutional Amendment on Children to put in place the best possible legal and constitutional protection for children. Among unanimous recommendations in our first interim report is a call for the enactment of legislation to facilitate the collation and exchange of unproven but substantial suspicions.
The exchange of such information is a significant and difficult move, but we agreed that, in the aftermath of the Ferns report and the Soham murders investigation, it is required. Our call is that the ends - of protecting children - justifies the unpalatable means.
Commentators have the luxury of making judgments on the actions of people in public life in the cold, calm aftermath of events. In doing so, they might have regard to the views of Mr Justice O'Flaherty in Attorney General -v- Hamilton (No 2) 1993: "Deputies have an obligation to air the concerns of their constituents and to draw attention to anything that is a matter of public unease or concern and they must be allowed to do so in freedom . . . "
• Brendan Howlin is Labour Party spokesman on constitutional matters and law reform