Child watchdog said no to a job on the bench
Shannon wanted to f inish crucial audit
THE State’s child protection watchdog turned down the chance to become a judge in order to continue a crucial audit that would go on to expose serious childcare failures by the Garda and Tusla.
In December 2015, the Cabinet announced it had nominated the Special Rapporteur on Child Protection Professor Geoffrey Shannon as a District Court judge – a position with a salary of €122,000. It followed his application for the role.
He said: ‘I declined [the offer]. I was undertaking the audit so that’s the reason – I felt the public interest was best served by continuing with the audit. I had applied for the position but the audit became more demanding and I had a dilemma.
‘I feel the audit is probably the most important piece of work I have ever undertaken in my career. It was a real honour and I hope it will make a very real difference. I have a lifelong commitment to the welfare of children in the State.’
At the time of his nomination, Mr Shannon was compiling his annual report for that year – which criticised many State failures. He was also halfway through his audit into An Garda Síochána’s use of Section 12 orders to remove children from their homes.
This scathing audit was published this week, with Mr Shannon saying: ‘There were children treated as human trash in some of these cases.’
Last night, a spokeswoman for Justice Minister Frances Fitzgerald said Mr Shannon wrote to her on January 26, 2016, to ‘decline the nomination owing to pressing work commitments’.
In his audit, Mr Shannon explains: ‘Due to the difficulties in reading and analysing the data in the format provided which required extensive and time-consuming cross-referencing between the various worksheets, An Garda Síochána was also requested to provide printouts of each Pulse incident which would contain particulars with regard to the child and the incident in one location. These were provided in December 2015.
‘Following extensive review and analysis of all data and documentation over a period of months, it was apparent that a number of significant anomalies existed in the information and documentation provided.’
Accepting the legal role in 2015 would have likely ended his role in the audit, as well as his term as special rapporteur.
Judicial appointments are typically chosen after the Judicial Appointments Advisory Board gives a list of candidates to the Government.