‘Devil worship at the heart of the seminary’

Head of Garda HR likened goings on in Templemore to scandals at FÁS and Console. Read his excoriating memo

A DAMNING internal memo written by the civilian Garda HR chief John Barrett has likened the revelations at the Garda College in Templemore to the scandals that enveloped FÁS and Console.

The memo, seen by the Irish Mail on Sunday, uses vivid language to describe his feelings a year after he first began to raise issues at the college. It also details a meeting he had with the chairman of the Garda Audit Committee Michael Howard on June 2, 2016.

During the two-and-a-half-hour meeting, Mr Barrett detailed the extent of the alleged malpractice, improper accounting and misappropriation of funds – some of which could have criminal consequences – and how internal probes into the controversy had been hidden from Mr Howard and the Garda Audit Committee by senior Garda management for more than a decade.

Mr Barrett compared the litany of maladministration to the recent scandal at suicide charity Console. However, he said the current controversy was far worse, given that it was public servants abusing the public purse.

In key excerpts from this explosive memo, Mr Barrett writes: ‘I have concluded that this matter may have a number of historical

‘Loyalty is more important than honesty’

parallels. The matters which beset FÁS in the era of Mr Rody Molloy as CEO, gave rise to significant public controversy and received much media and academic attention at the time and since.

‘In that case, funds from the public purse were expended on a variety of projects that, when held up to public scrutiny, were considered more for the benefit of staff than the public served and deliberately wasteful of public funds. The FÁS case was one, where a policy argument could be advanced to explain the travel and programmes supported. Less of a case, however, in my view, can be advanced for the opaque and outside the Vote [‘Vote’ refers to the total taxpayer money assigned by the Oireachtas to the Garda] expenditure and accounting in An Garda Síochána.’

Of Console, he said: ‘Those running the charity were not full-time public servants, paid by the State and bound by ethics in public office legislation or the terms of the An Garda Síochána Acts. The known abuse of office and the blurring of the lines in the management of public money within the Garda College is a huge concern which arises directly with respect to all the structures and all the transactions within the Garda organisation. In the case of Console, quite properly, huge public disquiet has resulted from the abuse of public trust. The same arises in this case, except that those involved in the off-balance sheet activities are all paid public servants making decisions with respect to money, all of which can be traced to the public purse.’

Mr Barrett later writes of a disregard for the law at the centre of An Garda Síochána that was like priests being devil worshippers. ‘This entire matter has been euphemistically described to me as being akin to devil worship at the heart of the seminary. It appears to be the reckless disregard of law, prudent financial governance and stewardship of public funds within the walls of the training college where Garda formation takes place.’

Mr Barrett details how during a meeting Mr Howard was ‘animated and engaged’ in discussions and was keen to arrange a number of followup meetings. However, seven weeks after the meeting there had been no follow-up contact, prompting Mr Barrett to write the memo. ‘I have now decided to formally write this memo to file as, curiously, more than seven weeks have now elapsed since Mr Howard met with me. I’m struck by the contrast between his statements at our meeting regarding his desire to have a follow-up meeting(s) in short course, the seriousness which he apparently attached to the entire matter as I outlined it to him and the deafening silence which has followed in the interregnum.

‘In the more than seven weeks since our meeting, I have had no contact whatsoever from Mr Howard, who is the statutory office holder under S29 of the Garda Síochána Act 2005,’ he wrote. During the meeting, Mr Howard spoke about his ‘close personal relationship with the Commissioner’. Mr Barrett seems to point to this ‘close personal relationship’ as the reason why he believes there had been no follow-up meetings. ‘I have been informed by [Head of Internal Audit] Mr Niall Kelly, however, that Mr Howard had a meeting with the Commissioner in the immediate aftermath of his meeting with me,’ Mr Barrett wrote. He also said he had been informed that, previously, at least one Garda commissioner blocked details of the scandal from emerging. ‘Mr Kelly, who has also had sight of the historic files on the Garda College issues, alerted me to this as, historically, there is evidence to suggest that previous efforts were made to prevent these matters moving towards the purview of the C&AG [Comptroller and Auditor General] by at least one former Garda Commissioner.’

Mr Barrett outlines how details of the maladministration at the college were raised internally, to former Garda Commissioner Fachtna Murphy, as far back as 2007, and that copies of the historic report had been blocked by senior management from being given to Mr Kelly.

‘Despite Mr Kelly’s best efforts to get a copy of the 2007 report, he was denied access to it by senior Garda management. This process of exclusion essentially closed down any prospect of the matters going beyond the walls of Garda HQ and becoming matters visible to your committee, the C&AG, the Public Accounts Committee and thereby into the public domain.

‘I have noted with deep concern the way in which the requirements of the legislation and indeed the standard set out by the Fennelly Commission, seem to have been ignored. I am mindful, too, of repeated failures of successive management representatives on your committee to inform you, as Chairman of the Audit Committee, in clear and unequivocal terms of the risks and associated matters

which were clearly known to them and documented in the internal reports from 2007, 2010 and most recently mine of a year ago.’

In a damning overview of Garda culture, Mr Barrett said the malpractices that the public had hoped were eradicated from the force following the Smithwick and Fennelly inquiries had not gone away.

‘In light of the entire standard set out by the recent Fennelly Commission and the commitments made to the public in recently published Policing & Security with Trust, it is essential, in my view, which accountability is shown to have meaning and consequence. In reality, and in a most profound cultural statement, these calculated actions say that the old ways of doing business, as chillingly described by Smithwick [the 2003 Smithwick Tribunal report that exposed Garda corruption] are still in vogue; that loyalty is more important than honesty.’

He said his office had been isolated since he had attempted to raise the issues, but that ‘isolation and marginalisation is not confined to me but extends to other senior civilians whose professional opinions and input on this and similar matters are contrary to current orthodoxy.’

He said repeated efforts were made to undermine his office since he met with Garda Commissioner Nóirín O’Sullivan and other senior gardaí on July 27, 2015, when he raised his concerns. At this meeting he also told them that it was a briefing from him which prompted the head of legal affairs, Ken Ruane, to write to Ms O’Sullivan and advise her that the issues fell under Section 41 of the Garda Síochána Act which would oblige her to tell the Minister for Justice. He wrote: ‘Since the meeting of July 27, 2015, repeated and visible efforts have been made to undermine the role and influence of my office following my explanation at that meeting that this matter was of deep concern and that Mr Ruane’s opinion with respect to a S41 referral was based on my decision to seek his professional advice as Head of Legal Affairs.’

In the lengthy memo, Mr Barrett outlines how he had immediate concerns at how the review was being conducted. ‘I became concerned very early on that the process was less about resolution, and more about implementing a containment strategy without any in-depth inquiry being made into the extent of the problems or the profound cultural statements which their existence made.’

Concluding, he wrote: ‘You will recall that on the occasion you shared dinner, and drinks, and bonhomie with the very many who were clearly aware of the occluded truth concerning the Garda College and how you and your committee members had been skilfully excluded from coming to know it.’