Committee Reports > List of Committees > Joint > 2004 > Committee on Justice, Equality, Defence and Women's Rights > Report No. 02 - Final Report into the Dublin and Monaghan Bombings

APPENDIX 3:

METHODOLOGY AND PROCEDURES

It is appropriate to commence by recalling how the Barron Report came into

being. On the 19th December 1999, An Taoiseach announced the appointment of

Mr. Justice Liam Hamilton. His terms of reference were agreed on 15th February

2000, and were as follows:

‘To undertake a thorough examination involving fact finding and assessment

of all aspects of the Dublin and Monaghan and their sequel, including:

(i) the facts, circumstances, causes and perpetrators of the bombings;

(ii) the nature, extent and adequacy and of the Garda investigation, including the co-operation with and from the relevant authorities in Northern Ireland and the handling

of evidence, including the scientific analyses of forensic evidence;

(iii) the reasons why no prosecution took place, including whether and if so, by whom and to what extent the investigations were impeded; and

(iv) the issues raised by the Hidden Hand T.V. documentary broadcast in 1993.’

In this context the phrase the “Dublin and Monaghan bombings” refers to:

(i) the bomb explosions that took place in Parnell Street, Talbot Street and South Leinster Street, Dublin, on 17 May, 1974.

(ii) the bomb explosion that took place in Church Square2, Monaghan, on 17 May 1974.

The results of the examination by Mr. Justice Hamilton (who was succeeded by

Mr. Justice Henry Barron) were to be presented to the Government, to be

followed by an examination of the report, including in public session by the Joint

Committee on Justice, Equality, Defence and Women’s Rights, or a sub-

Committee of that Committee. The Sub-Committee on the Barron Report was

subsequently established to achieve those aims. It was envisaged that the Joint

Committee would advise the Oireachtas as to what further action, if any, would

be necessary to establish the truth of what happened.

2 The original orders of reference assigned to Mr. Justice Liam Hamilton referred to North Street, but the bomb

in fact occurred outside Greacen’s Bar, Church Square, Monaghan.

88

The Barron Report was presented to An Taoiseach on the 29th October 2003. The

main body of the Report was 277 pages long. An idea of the areas covered may be

gathered from the “part” headings:

Part 1: Background information;

Part 2: The Garda Investigation;

Part 3: Assessment of the Investigation

Part 4: Issues raised by the “Hidden Hand” Programme;

Part 5: The Perpetrators and Possible Collusion;

Part 6: Conclusions.

The Report also contained four appendices dealing with the following subjects:

(i) A transcript of the “Hidden Hand” Programme;

(ii) Murder of John Francis Greene;

(iii) Weapons linking members of the security forces

and loyalist paramilitaries.

(iv) Profile of the Victims of the Dublin/Monaghan

bombings.

PROCEDURES:

By a Motion of Referral by Dáil Éireann and Seanad Éireann dated 10th December,

2003, both Houses of the Oireachtas requested the Joint Committee on Justice,

Equality, Defence and Women’s Rights, or a sub-committee thereof, to consider,

including in public session, the Report and to report back to both Houses within

three months concerning:

(i) whether the Report of the Independent

Commission of Inquiry into the Dublin and

Monaghan bombings of 1974 addresses all of the

issues covered in the terms of reference of the

Inquiry.

(ii) the lessons to be drawn and any actions to be

taken in the light of the Report, its findings and

conclusions.

(iii) whether, having regard to the Report’s findings,

and following consultations with the Inquiry, a

further public inquiry into any aspect of the

Report would be required or fruitful.

These are the circumstances which led the Joint Committee to establish the Sub-

Committee to consider, including in public session, the Report and to report back

to the Joint Committee. This Sub-Committee was given the same terms of

reference as outlined above and this Report has been issued in accordance with

those terms.

89

REQUEST FOR SUBMISSIONS:

Before the Sub-Committee commenced its public hearings, it invited interested

parties with information pertinent to its terms of reference to make submissions

to it. In response, written submissions were received and many of them were

clearly the result of a great deal of time and effort. As will be apparent from this

Report, the submissions were of enormous benefit to the Sub-Committee and we

are extremely grateful to all of the authors. A list of all the parties and bodies who

provided the Committee with written submissions appears in Appendix 8 to this

Report.

After careful consideration of all the written submissions received, certain parties

whose written submissions were of particular relevance to the Sub-Committee’s

terms of reference were invited to make additional oral submissions. These

submissions consisted of a short oral presentation followed by questions from

individual members of the Sub-Committee about matters arising out of those

presentations. Simply because an oral presentation was not requested, it does not

follow that the Sub-Committee was not assisted by the other written

submissions. All submissions were circulated to each member of the Sub-

Committee and formed an integral part of its deliberations.

A list of the persons and bodies who made oral submissions to the Sub-

Committee is contained at Appendix 9 of this Report. At this point it is

important to note that everyone who appeared before the Sub-Committee did so

on a voluntary basis and the Sub-Committee wishes to sincerely thank all

involved for their assistance with its work.

In order to complete the work assigned to it by the Houses of the Oireachtas, the

public hearings were organised into a number of modules. The Sub-Committee

endeavoured, in adopting its proposed programme, to arrive at the best means of

structuring its work, bearing in mind the specific terms of reference. The Sub-

Committee adopted this programme in order to optimise the time available to it

to fulfil its remit within the timeframe delegated by the Houses of the Oireachtas.

The oral hearings were conducted over a number of days. The Sub-Committee

has prepared this R pursuant to its terms of reference for the purposes of

reporting back to the Joint Committee on Justice, Equality, Defence and

Women’s Rights, which in turn will report back to both Houses of the

Oireachtas. The Joint Committee in line with its terms of reference will report

back to the Houses of the Oireachtas by 1st April 2004. This Report of the Sub-

Committee to both Houses, details the submissions made, hearings held, and

such comments, recommendations or conclusions as the Sub-Committee has

decided to make.

The Sub-Committee would also like to take this opportunity to express its

gratitude for the work done by the late Mr. Justice Hamilton and also by Mr.

Justice Barron and their staff, who have performed an important public service in

producing the Report that the Sub-Committee is considering herein.

In respect of procedures, it should be noted that the Sub-Committee was bound

by its very precise terms of reference. In particular, the Sub-Committee was not

conducting an investigation of its own into the terrible events of 1974 or seeking

90

to apportion any blame to any person or body. The Sub-Committee had neither

the jurisdiction nor the legal authority to perform any such function.

It should also be noted that in its work, the Sub-Committee was both legally and

constitutionally bound to respect and follow what was stated by the Supreme

Court in its judgment in the Abbeylara case (Maguire v Ardagh [2002] 1 IR 385). In

that case, Mr. Justice Hardiman stated that:

“If the Oireachtas were enabled to send for any citizen and to reach findings of

fact or conclusions which could be adverse to him and affect his reputation and

employment, it would indeed be functioning as a ‘High Court of Parliament’

and its members would indeed be ‘general inquisitors of the realm’, to use the

archaic language employed by the English courts to describe the former powers

of the Westminister parliament. I have not heard anything that convinces me

that there is in our Constitution anything which confers such a power on the

Oireachtas, either in relation to civil or public servants or in relation to

citizens generally.”

Mr. Justice Geoghegan stated:

“Any kind of inquiry by an Oireachtas committee or sub-committee for a

direct and express legislative purpose and which would not be intended to

result in findings of blameworthy conduct on the part of identifiable

individuals is constitutionally and legally permissible.”

As a result of what the Supreme Court stated in the Abbeylara case the Sub-

Committee was legally restrained from entering into any adjudication on the

issue of culpability. At all times it was conscious of working within its terms of

reference.

While conducting its public hearings, the Sub-Committee applied the Standing

Orders of Dáil Éireann and Seanad Éireann.

It is important to understand how the Sub-Committee approached its review of

the Barron Report. It was not the function of the Sub-Committee to reach its own

findings of fact. It was not permitted to do this under its terms of reference, and

there would also be legal difficulties in making any findings of responsibility or

culpability as a result of the Abbeylara judgment.

The Sub-Committee was of the view that it could consider whether Mr. Justice

Barron failed to address any issue in the sense of whether he dealt with it at all in

his Report. In addition, it was of the view that it could legitimately consider

whether:

(i) any of the findings of Mr. Justice Barron appear to

have been made in the absence of any evidence to

support them, and whether

(ii) any of the findings were made without any

rational basis, for example, not hearing from a

necessary witness.

91