I thank Deputy Carthy for tabling this question. I know how much pain the O’Farrell family have gone through since August 2011. Neither I, Deputy Carthy nor anyone else in the House can alleviate that pain, but what we can try to do is ensure that answers are provided to the O'Farrell family in respect of the issues of concern from that terrible evening. It is important to emphasise that primary responsibility for Shane’s death rests with Zigimantas Gridziuska, the man who drove the car that struck Shane from behind, who failed to stop and remain at the scene and who subsequently that evening hid his car away from his home. As Deputy Carthy will be aware, he was prosecuted in February 2013 for dangerous driving causing death. He was acquitted. I know that is not the justice outcome that the O'Farrell family wanted but it is the consequence that we have to deal with and respond to. There were, however, issues of concern that I highlighted previously, as did Deputy Carthy. These were that the driver was on bail at the time, gardaí stopped his car one hour before the collision and he had previous convictions that should have triggered his reappearance before the courts. Those were the reasons I tabled that motion in June 2018. The motion was effective because it resulted in the Government changing its approach to the Shane O'Farrell matter and establishing a scoping inquiry. That inquiry took longer than most scoping inquiries and came back with a very lengthy report of 415 pages. This was much longer than I or anyone else expected. I cannot ignore the scoping report, but I will refer the recommendations contained within it to the justice committee, once that committee is up and running. I will keep my mind open in respect of the matter and the question the Deputy asked, but I cannot give him a definitive answer now.

Sentiment score: -0.04

The Deputy has highlighted the issues of concern and he has correctly pointed out that not just the O'Farrell family, but the public is entitled to answers on these. The Deputy mentioned that the driver was on bail on charges of theft and possession of stolen property at the time of the collision. The Deputy also mentioned that Gridziuska's convictions for those theft offences in May 2011 should have triggered his reappearance before the courts. I cannot ignore the fact that, in the scoping exercise report, those issues were dealt with. I fully agree with the Deputy that I do not expect the justice committee to start conducting inquisitorial hearings. It cannot do so. I was on the justice committee as a member and as Chairman. However, what the justice committee can do when I send it the report is to look at the recommendations that are contained within. The Deputy and many others may not like the content of the replies provided in the scoping report, but they have to be considered. I come back to the point that I cannot ignore a report of 415 pages, but we need to have further engagement on it. The recommendations need to be assessed by the justice committee. I will keep an open mind on the Deputy's principal question.

Sentiment score: 0.14

I do not want to interfere with what the justice committee wants to do, but if a request comes from it to my Department, I will ensure that careful consideration is given to it. I have to make a broader point on scoping inquiries and reports. Generally, when there is a proposal in the House to establish a commission of investigation or a tribunal of inquiry, a scoping report is done in advance. We did it with the allegations of sexual abuse in schools, where Mary O'Toole SC prepared the scoping inquiry report. It took about three or four months and comprised around 40 pages. She said that there needed to be an investigation into those matters because she was not able to establish the detail of it. However, the scoping report we are discussing is different and I cannot ignore the fact that it says that there should be no further inquiry. I fully understand and appreciate the Deputy's political objective but he has to understand that other people could quite legitimately say to me that I was told not to set up a further inquiry. I am keeping the matter open, but I cannot ignore the content of the scoping report.

Sentiment score: 0.10

I thank the Deputy for his question and for his interest in this important area. The question of Garda vetting of individuals who go on to become members of An Garda Síochána is an important issue. It is not like ordinary vetting where somebody wants to become a football coach or is involved with children because it is much more thorough. I am informed by the Commissioner that vetting of candidates is conducted by the Garda National Vetting Bureau in a centralised unit and that it is the most stringent vetting in respect of any role in the State. The Deputy is correct to state that there has been a change in how the vetting has occurred, but it is not correct to state that people enter Templemore unvetted. I have been informed that there are three stages to the vetting process. Before somebody enters Templemore, stage 1 of the vetting has been completed. There are then stages 2 and 3, which are now being done during the course of the individual's presence within Templemore. The reason we did that is we wanted to speed up the process of recruiting members to An Garda Síochána. I am frequently asked questions about this and, before I was a Minister, I said that we needed to do more to speed up the process of recruitment. One of the mechanisms by which recruitment was being slowed down was that the vetting process was taking too long. Instead, what will happen is people will be vetted at stage 1, they will go into Templemore, and stages 2 and 3 will be completed while they are at Templemore. The effect of that has been that, on 10 March, 201 trainee gardaí started in Templemore. When they are attested in December this year and when they are then out on the streets, they will have been vetted to the exact same extent as any member of An Garda Síochána who was vetted under the old system. This will not result in a situation where gardaí are patrolling the streets as attested members who have not been thoroughly vetted. I know the Deputy's concern but it is not correct - this is my respectful response - to say that people are entering unvetted. They are vetted. It is just that the process of vetting is not completed until they are fully attested.

Sentiment score: 0.10

The objective is to ensure that, once people become attested members of An Garda Síochána, they will have been fully vetted. That will continue the way it did previously. We need to look at the three stages of it. The first stage, which is done before anyone enters Templemore, requires all candidates on their applications to become trainees to complete what is known as a form B. This document is very extensive and involves requesting detailed personal information from candidates, such as details on any time they lived abroad and information on all extended family members, including family who live abroad and may have little or no interaction with the candidate. These checks can take the timelines for completion outside the control of both the candidate and the vetting bureau. That is the first stage in respect of vetting. The second and third stages are done while the candidate is in Templemore. The second stage involves security checks and local vetting, which involves a short interview conducted by a sergeant or someone of higher rank in the candidate's local station. Stage 3 involves the Garda National Vetting Bureau making a final decision under the authority of the Commissioner. Once an attested garda goes out on the street, he or she will have been vetted to the same extent as previously.

Sentiment score: 0.09

They will be fully vetted by the time they are gardaí.

Sentiment score: 0.00

What we are talking about, so people are aware-----

Sentiment score: 0.00

-----is that part of the vetting process happens during the training process. The reason that is done is we are trying to increase the numbers going into An Garda Síochána.

Sentiment score: 0.16

We have a recruitment crisis.

Sentiment score: -0.62

They do not drop.

Sentiment score: 0.21

What the public is concerned about is the quality-----

Sentiment score: 0.00

Will the Deputy let me answer the question? What the public is concerned about is the quality of the garda on the street. Fortunately, the quality of the gardaí on the street in this country is excellent. They are fully vetted, more than any other official in the public service. They are vetted thoroughly. What is happening is we are changing the sequencing of the process. The reason we are doing that is to try to speed it up. Part of the problem is the fact that many people have spent time abroad. They have been in Australia and other parts of the world. Garda management have to find out about them when they have been away for two or three years. That takes time.

Sentiment score: 0.02

Let me finish the answer. Rather than saying to those individuals that they cannot start at Templemore until we have thoroughly got information about them, we are letting them start and then getting the information. We are getting fully vetted gardaí at the end of the process.

Sentiment score: 0.00

I thank the Deputy for his question. It is important that policymakers, including Ministers, keep a close watch on the law in respect of bail. I note the answer the Deputy got, which stated that 40,348 crimes were carried out in 2024 while persons were on bail. Like him, I thought that was extremely high. I then asked for a breakdown of a description of the nature of the crimes. Of the crimes committed while people were on bail, 20% were in respect of theft from shops. That is approximately 8,000 crimes. Five thousand were in respect of breach of bail. Public order offences were 13.7% or approximately 5,000. There were 2,500 drunkenness offences and the simple possession of drugs was in the region of 6% or approximately 2,000 offences. As many of these offences are regarded as summary offences, they would not in the ordinary course of events result in individuals being remanded in custody when people are brought before the court. That is the truth of the matter. When we look at the nature of the offences, we see that many of them are to be prosecuted in the District Court. If people are brought before the District Court on a charge of theft, they obviously have to be remanded for the hearing, but they are not remanded in custody. The Deputy may disagree with that, but the reason they are not remanded in custody is that we already have a problem in our prisons and we would have another 10,000 people if we were going to remand in custody all the individuals charged with offences committed in 2024 that were minor offences. I am fully aware of the significance of the Bail Act. In 1997, people said they wanted the courts to refuse bail in circumstances where they thought there was a likelihood that a serious offence would be committed. When it comes to people being charged with serious offences, especially violent offences, the presumption should be that bail would not be granted.

Sentiment score: -0.07

Serious offences committed while people are on bail should trigger my interest and that of other policymakers. The offences I outlined, including theft from shops, public order offences and drunkenness offences, are the offences committed by people on bail. With the greatest of respect to the Deputy, I do not think they are the issues he is concerned about. He is more concerned about serious offences. The percentage of individuals who are now in custody and are not on bail has increased significantly in recent years. For instance, it is notable that of the 5,155 people who were in custody on 3 March, 20% were on remand. That is significantly more than in previous years. Since March 2015, there has been a significant increase in the number of people in custody. In the same period, the number of people on remand has increased by 112%, which reflects the approach of the courts in refusing bail where they deem it appropriate to do so. Courts are more in tune with the fact that they should not be granting bail in circumstances where they think it not appropriate. That is reflected in the figures.

Sentiment score: 0.04

I do not have the information in respect of the Deputy's question on the other 41% and I apologise for that. If the Deputy asks another parliamentary question, that information may or may not be available. I am not sure at present. I note what the Deputy stated about the increase in figures between 2016 and 2024. Our population has increased so significantly during that period that it is not surprising there has been an increase. On reviewing the operation of bail and bail laws, I want to prioritise the introduction of electronic monitoring, which would make matters considerably easier when it comes to remanding people on bail as opposed to in custody. We would be able to monitor where they were. Bail terms and conditions are imposed and we would be able to ensure they are being complied with. Regarding gardaí not being able to monitor breaches of bail conditions, if the Deputy looks at the statistics I gave him, he will see that breach of bail accounted for 13.8% of the 40,000 offences committed by people on bail. That indicates that the Garda is monitoring bail compliance.

Sentiment score: 0.19

The Deputy will be aware that sentencing is a complex matter, but people want to see some consistency in sentencing. I want to see that as well. The mechanism by which we are seeking to achieve this was set out in the Judicial Council Act 2019, under which there is a procedure for the Judiciary to set out sentencing guidelines. I look forward to receiving those sentencing guidelines from the Judiciary, as they will improve consistency throughout the course of imposing sentences. We also need to be aware that concurrent and consecutive sentences are options available to judges. Under our law, consecutive sentences can be imposed by the courts. In fact, the Oireachtas has mandated that, in certain circumstances, there should be consecutive sentences. For instance, in reference to Deputy Carthy's question earlier, if people commit a serious offence while on bail, the law dictates that they receive a consecutive sentence. That is provided for in the Criminal Justice Acts. It is also the case that, if people commit an offence while serving a sentence for another offence, for example, if they are out on temporary release, that should result in a consecutive sentence as well. I appreciate the concern Deputies and victims and their families have when they see a concurrent sentence being imposed in respect of different offences. The message that goes out is that there was no real sentence for the offence committed against the victim because the person was already serving a sentence in any event. That is not what the law seeks to achieve. Judges sometimes look at the issues in terms of the totality of what occurred. In circumstances where there is one offence and a series of convictions in respect of it, concurrent sentences are probably appropriate. However, where the offences are separate, it is my view that consecutive offences are appropriate.

Sentiment score: 0.02

I am aware of the tragic case of Joe Drennan. I am not going to talk about it, as I am sure the Deputy can appreciate. The matter is being appealed by the DPP to the Court of Appeal and it would be inappropriate for me to say anything in respect of it. I will speak in general terms about where multiple offences have been committed. Sentences imposed in response to multiple offences can be imposed concurrently, consecutively or a combination of both. Offences committed while on bail, in custody or while a suspended sentence is in place attract consecutive sentences. That is provided for expressly in legislation. Section 11 of the Criminal Justice Act 1984 states, as I said previously, that if a person commits an offence while on bail, the sentence should run consecutively. There is also section 13 of the Criminal Law Act 1976, which states that if a person commits an offence while serving a sentence, such as a suspended sentence, the sentence should run consecutively. More recently, the Criminal Justice (Burglary of Dwellings) Act 2015 provides for consecutive sentences in relation to certain burglary offences. The law provides for it, therefore, but I appreciate and understand the Deputy's concern.

Sentiment score: -0.04

In general, there is consistency throughout the criminal justice process when it comes to the imposition of sentences. We do not hear about it because it does not give rise to public controversy but consistency is very important. That consistency will be increased and improved when we see judicial guidelines being put forward by the Judicial Council. However, we need to recognise that sometimes - and I am not speaking about any particular case - judges make mistakes and that is why we have the appeals structure that exists. The appeals structure is there to correct mistakes that are made by lower courts. Thus there are systems in place to ensure that if there is a misapplication of the law by a court, it is corrected on appeal. I am very conscious of the responsibility we are asking the Judiciary to perform in respect of sentencing guidelines. I am especially interested in seeing that and the public will also be interested in seeing what the guidelines for certain types of offences are. Serious offences merit serious sentences. However, we must also recognise sentencing is complex. A judge must take into account a number of factors before imposing a sentence.

Sentiment score: 0.13