Mattie Mcgrath accuses Shatter of being stopped by Gardai

Sully

Mattie Mcgrath has just, in the Dail during leaders questions, accused Shatter of being stopped by Gardai before the election (late Feb / March 2011) in the period after the election and before he was appointed minister. Asked was the Tanaiste or Taoiseach aware that Minister Shatter was stopped at a Garda Checkpoint. He asked was he cautioned by a Garda, did they use their discretion, was he asked to provide a specimen of breath, and whether his behaviour and reaction to this event was appropriate and cordial, and whether he attempted to to use privilege of travelling to and from the Dail to avoid being breathalysed. He is asking for the Garda report to be given in relation to this incident in the public interest.

The question was posed to Rabbitte who is doing Leaders Questions today, and Rabbite denied any knowledge but outlined two such incidents where he personally was stopped (and passed the breath test). He said he had no knowledge, asked how would he and that he wouldn't know about any other TD. There was laughter in the chamber during the response.

Looks like its going to be tit-for-tat in the Dail. Dirty politics being played by everyone, including Shatter. It further proves that if you take a moral high ground on an issue in politics, the media or the opposition will dig and dig until they can trip you up. It happened with Ming, Wallace, and now Shatter. It will be very interesting to see how the Minister responds, and if he didn't provide a specimen of breath under the Dail privilege, his carrier is surely over.

Banjo String

This whole mess just continues to get worse and worse for shatter.

In any other civilized country he'd be long gone at this stage, either voluntarily via resignation, or. forcibly, by being sacked.

I won't hold my breath on either though.

Sully

SamHall wrote: »

This whole mess just continues to get worse and worse for shatter.

In any other civilized country he'd be long gone at this stage, either voluntarily via resignation, or. forcibly, by being sacked.

I won't hold my breath on either though.

Well to be fair, we have other TDs in the Dail with similar poor records and poor judgement who have yet to resign. But I can't see how, if what Mattie is suggesting is true, he can ride this storm out.

M three

Lets see now what crap shatter will be spouting.
Perhaps he got pissed and caught drunk driving on purpose, as part of an audit on Garda procedures, eh?

Time for that waste of space shatter to go.

wazzer1

Sorry but whats this Dail privilege, they dont have to take a breath test??

Floppybits

Lets see what dirt is now been dug on Mattie McGrath and being leaked to our independant media. I think this is going to get nastier and nastier over the next few days.

everdead.ie

I have been stopped by the Gardai several times, normally all they do is check tax and if it's late at night they come over and stick their head in the window to see if I have been drinking.

More information is needed before we can judge him on this it could be as innocuous as my experience.

Matties accusations raise more questions about TD's and their informants than it does about Alan Shatter. This tit for tat rubbish is distracting time and energy from the bigger issues. Disappointed in Mattie.

ResearchWill

wazzer1 wrote: »

Sorry but whats this Dail privilege, they dont have to take a breath test??

No a member of the Dail can not be arrested going to or from the Dail. This is contained in the Constitution Article 15 13

"13. The members of each House of the Oireachtas shall, except in case of treason as defined in this Constitution, felony or breach of the peace, be privileged from arrest in going to and returning from, and while within the precincts of, either House, and shall not, in respect of any utterance in either House, be amenable to any court or any authority other than the House itself."

This was to make sure that in important votes members would not be stopped from voting.

cletus van damme

Deleted User wrote: »

Matties accusations raise more questions about TD's and their informants than it does about Alan Shatter. This tit for tat rubbish is distracting time and energy from the bigger issues. Disappointed in Mattie.

mattie is dead right in exposing shatter given shatter chose to go down that route. kudos mattie

bmaxi

Deleted User wrote: »

Matties accusations raise more questions about TD's and their informants than it does about Alan Shatter. This tit for tat rubbish is distracting time and energy from the bigger issues. Disappointed in Mattie.

You think that it's not in the public interest to know that a serving Minister may have committed a serious offence?

rodento

Shatter will issue a statement later today

http://www.rte.ie/news/2013/0523/452129-alan-shatter/

Cody Pomeray

What are the Gardaí at. I don't care so much if Shatter was stopped and used Dáil privilege, as much as there are some extremely loose lipped Gardaí in the force.

These Gardaí are not whistleblowers - there is no question of illegality and any impropriety seems political and inadequate.

Forget Shatter, it's about time these unacceptable leaks of individual's records started being clamped down upon.

bmaxi

bmaxi wrote: »

You think that it's not in the public interest to know that a serving Minister may have committed a serious offence?

If he HAD committed a serious offense, yes we would know about it. My problem is where TD's get their information. There are some Gardai being very free and selective in who they are telling tales on. That is not on. Serious questions need to be asked about the practice of Gardai passing on confidential information.

john.han

Deleted User wrote: »

If he HAD committed a serious offense, yes we would know about it. My problem is where TD's get their information. There are some Gardai being very free and selective in who they are telling tales on. That is not on. Serious questions need to be asked about the practice of Gardai passing on confidential information.

As far as I can see they are leaking information about all sides, they're not discriminating, Shatter's use of confidential information given to him in a briefing by the commissioner made everything fair game, that was his call and if it backfires spectacularly then so be it. He retains zero credibility and has abused his office, time for him to go.

Sully

A bit of a crack down is needed tbh, seems getting access on peoples past is easy to come by if you are a member of the Dail or Media.

oscarBravo

Agreed that the inability of Garda members to keep a secret is a problem. The other problem is that there doesn't seem to be a single sitting TD who could find the moral high ground with a map and compass.

The idea that Shatter doing something stupid "made everything fair game" is ridiculous. Either it wasn't OK for him to say what he said on Prime Time, and it's not OK for Mattie McGrath to say what he said; or it's fair game for both of them. "He started it" doesn't cut it.

Banjo String

Deleted User wrote: »

Matties accusations raise more questions about TD's and their informants than it does about Alan Shatter. This tit for tat rubbish is distracting time and energy from the bigger issues. Disappointed in Mattie.

You do realise Alan Shatter is minister for justice yeah?

Issues don't get much bigger than this one tbh.

soobie

Deleted User wrote: »

If he HAD committed a serious offense, yes we would know about it. My problem is where TD's get their information. There are some Gardai being very free and selective in who they are telling tales on. That is not on. Serious questions need to be asked about the practice of Gardai passing on confidential information.

It appears that you seem to be ok when confidential info obtained from Garda Commisioners about Mick Wallace is allowed enter the public domain.

Originally Posted by Maryanne84
No. Mick Wallace was one of the few that raised Penalty points being quashed in the Dail, so he's fair game.

john.han

oscarBravo wrote: »

Agreed that the inability of Garda members to keep a secret is a problem. The other problem is that there doesn't seem to be a single sitting TD who could find the moral high ground with a map and compass.

The idea that Shatter doing something stupid "made everything fair game" is ridiculous. Either it wasn't OK for him to say what he said on Prime Time, and it's not OK for Mattie McGrath to say what he said; or it's fair game for both of them. "He started it" doesn't cut it.

He said it and justified saying it with a public interest argument. If he believes his own argument then he'll have to accept the consequencs of that, it was fair of Mattie to release the information given Shatter's justification for his actions and his refusal to accept what he did was an abuse of his office.

john.han

There is also a distinction in that Shatter received the information in a confidential briefing as part of his Ministerial duties, Mattie McGrath got the information from god knows where but obviously not under the explicit veil of confidentiality that Shatter is obligated to respect with regards to information he is privy to as Minister for Justice.

Cody Pomeray

SamHall wrote: »

You do realise Alan Shatter is minister for justice yeah?

Issues don't get much bigger than this one tbh.

don't they? Because I'm having trouble identifying the issue.

All I can see is (1) more allegations of hypocrisy - which was ridiculous when it was applied to excuse leaking Wallace's data, and is just as ridiculous now.

Or else (2) allegations that the law on impeding TDs on route to the Dáil is unfair. But it is the law, unfairness doesn't come into it.

To be clear, I think Shatter has to resign for his use of privileged information in a political debate. He deserves that to be the end of his Ministerial career. Resigning over this non issue, as he may do, will just detract from that other, and more serious story.

oscarBravo

john.han wrote: »

...it was fair of Mattie to release the information given Shatter's justification for his actions...

...which amounts to either a tacit acceptance that Shatter's actions were justified, or to hypocrisy. Which is it?

john.han

oscarBravo wrote: »

...which amounts to either a tacit acceptance that Shatter's actions were justified, or to hypocrisy. Which is it?

Don't be selective in what you quote, I drew a distinction between how each of them came upon the information and it's clear Shatter breached his duties to the office he holds. Shatter refused to accept responsibility for the abuse of his position, in doing so he created a public interest requirement for information regarding his behaviour to be released.

Shatter's actions can never be justified given the manner in which he came to know of Wallace's mobile phone use.

Cody Pomeray

john.han wrote: »

Shatter refused to accept responsibility for the abuse of his position, in doing so he created a public interest requirement for information regarding his behaviour to be released.

Completely false comparison.

Yes Shatter refused to accept responsibility for the abuse of his position. That much is agreed.

But there is absolutely no logical link to then revealing private information from Shatter's personal interactions with the Gardaí. That's nothing more than another attempt political assassination, using information that should never enter the public domain.

oscarBravo

john.han wrote: »

Shatter's actions can never be justified given the manner in which he came to know of Wallace's mobile phone use.

Just so we're clear, your opinion on whether or not it's acceptable to release confidential Garda information about a political opponent is predicated solely and totally on the manner in which that information was obtained?

John_C

oscarBravo wrote: »

Just so we're clear, your opinion on whether or not it's acceptable to release confidential Garda information about a political opponent is predicated solely and totally on the manner in which that information was obtained?

I'm sure john.han can answer for himself but I think how the data's obtained plays a pretty big part in it.
I don't think there was anything wrong with this story being published. I thought the story about Ming's points was fair too. Certainly I don't think the journos or TDs did anything wrong (I'm a bit sceptical of the Guards motivations). The main problem with Shatter's story is that he got the info in a briefing which was supposed to be confidential.

Cody Pomeray

John_C wrote: »

The main problem with Shatter's story is that he got the info in a briefing which was supposed to be confidential.

I haven't seen anyone make that argument.

The valid argument against what Shatter did was that the data is confidential, not the meeting.

There are no existing rules about this specific briefing between the Garda Commissioner and the Minister being necessarily confidential, unless you know of any?

john.han

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

I haven't seen anyone make that argument.

The valid argument against what Shatter did was that the data is confidential, not the meeting.

There are no existing rules about this specific briefing between the Garda Commissioner and the Minister being necessarily confidential, unless you know of any?

Read my posts again, I make that point expicitly.

Briefings between the Commissioner and the Minister for Justice are confidential given the sensitive nature of the information exchanged, by using such information Shatter breached the trust required for him to remain in office. I have stated he should resign, and in reality if he doesn't then he should be sacked.

oscarBravo

john.han wrote: »

Briefings between the Commissioner and the Minister for Justice are confidential given the sensitive nature of the information exchanged...

...but if similarly sensitive information is received by an opposition TD from a Garda member in a pub, there is no expectation of confidentiality?

For that matter, if Shatter had had the information whispered to him in whatever manner Mattie McGrath had, it wouldn't have been a problem for him to have disclosed it?

john.han

oscarBravo wrote: »

Just so we're clear, your opinion on whether or not it's acceptable to release confidential Garda information about a political opponent is predicated solely and totally on the manner in which that information was obtained?

Twisting words doesn't make for strong argument, certain information garnered can never be released, such as information given to the Justice minister in confidential briefings with the head of our police force, that is a simple fact ensuring a democratic separation of powers required to ensure our police force is politically neutral.

Where our Justice minister chooses to release such information (for the purpose of a political attack), he creates a situation where the separation of powers is no longer intact and thus his position is untenable. It is perfectly fair for his hypocrisy to be exposed given his actions. A higher standard is required for a minister with regards information gained in such briefings, that is clear and straightforward and I'm surprised you can't make the distinction.

John_C

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

I haven't seen anyone make that argument.

Fair enough, I've heard a lot of people make it but, in any event, an argument doesn't stand or fall on how popular it is.

The best run down of the rules I've read was from Dr. Elaine Bryne. I'm not great with twitter but if you scroll down her account here to 17th May she goes through the relevant laws.

The most relevant piece seems to be from The Code of Conduct for Office Holders:
"Ministers should "act in good faith with impartiality... respect confidences entrusted to them in the course of their official duties."
But she also goes through the relevant parts of a few other pieces of legislation.

oscarBravo

john.han wrote: »

...I'm surprised you can't make the distinction.

I can make it; I don't feel that it should be made. By demanding Shatter's head on a plate while exonerating McGrath, you're making precisely the argument that it's OK to release confidential information that you've received as gossip, but not to release confidential information that you've received in a briefing.

That's glossing over the much more substantive point that it's not OK to release confidential information in order to damage a political opponent. Maybe you're comfortable with skipping over that rather significant point on your way to Shatter's lynching, but I'm not.

mikehammer67

if shatter resigns over this

it's tough tiddy...........just sayin like

john.han

oscarBravo wrote: »

I can make it; I don't feel that it should be made. By demanding Shatter's head on a plate while exonerating McGrath, you're making precisely the argument that it's OK to release confidential information that you've received as gossip, but not to release confidential information that you've received in a briefing.

That's glossing over the much more substantive point that it's not OK to release confidential information in order to damage a political opponent. Maybe you're comfortable with skipping over that rather significant point on your way to Shatter's lynching, but I'm not.

Do you not see that because of his position a higher standard has to be expected? McGrath's revelations have not put the separation of powers into question, Shatter has done exactly that, which is a breach of his constitutional duties. You are trying to group both disclosures equally when it's plainly obvious what Shatter did is of far greater consequence.

intellectual dosser

Our country is in the dumps, hundreds if not thousands are emigrating each week, we're in the middle of one of the biggest legislation debates we've had for years - but whether or not Shatter was routinely stopped by the Gardai is what the Dail are talking about.

Cody Pomeray

john.han wrote: »

Briefings between the Commissioner and the Minister for Justice are confidential given the sensitive nature of the information exchanged

Right, so it is the information that is sensitive, not the meeting.

So how does this principle exonerate Mattie McGrath?

john.han wrote: »

Do you not see that because of his position a higher standard has to be expected?

Mattie McGrath is a legislator. I'd say a pretty high standard has to be expected of him, you know.

john.han

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

Right, so it is the information that is sensitive, not the meeting.

So how does this principle exonerate Mattie McGrath?

No, the meeting is confidential given the nature of the information and the position of the parties involved. As I have said previously the Minister of Justice has a duty to uphold the separation of powers as required by our constitution and his disclosure was a grave breach of this duty. Mattie McGrath did not do this.

john.han

Is it accepted that Minister Shatter breached the separation of powers that is supposed to exist?

Cody Pomeray

john.han wrote: »

No, the meeting is confidential given the nature of the information and the position of the parties involved.

I don't see how you're forming a disagreement then.

Lets apply the above test to the Mattie McGrath case:

Can the information be described as confidential?
Yes. The information is protected under the Data Protection Acts and the Official Secrets Act, 1963.

Do the parties involved hold positions of high responsibility?
Mattie McGrath is a political office holder, if he received this information from a member of An Garda Síochána, the answer to this question is Yes.

Godge

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

But there is absolutely no logical link to then revealing private information from Shatter's personal interactions with the Gardaí. That's nothing more than another attempt political assassination, using information that should never enter the public domain.

I disagree.

It is of public interest (if true) that Shatter was stopped by Gardai and refused a breath test because he was on the way to be the Dail. It is a resigning matter, if true, as it was an abuse of power.

It doesn't expose him as a hypocrite as unlike Wallace, he wasn't going round preaching one thing in public and doing another in private.

So if all the allegations are true then Shatter should resign over the abuse of the travelling to the Dail provision and Wallace is a hypocritical gombeen who should be ignored by all and sundry until the good people of Wexford decide in their wisdom to re-elect him.

If true, Shatter's actions in exposing Wallace's hypocrisy were in the public interest, ditto McGrath's actions in exposing Shatter's abuse of power is in the public interest. However, if either allegation is untrue (and I think Wallace has already admitted his) then there should be serious grovelling from the accusers.

Cody Pomeray

Godge wrote: »

I disagree.

It is of public interest (if true) that Shatter was stopped by Gardai and refused a breath test because he was on the way to be the Dail. It is a resigning matter, if true, as it was an abuse of power.

He has issued a statement saying he is asthmatic and was incapable of providing a sample. A Garda consulted with another Garda, and then let him go.

Shatter's actions in exposing Wallace's hypocrisy were in the public interest

Absolute nonsense, but this path is already well trod.

Sierra Oscar

Here is the statement in full - link.

Statement by Justice Minister Alan Shatter

Deputy McGrath in the Dáil this morning asked the Tánaiste about an event involving me which he alleged occurred sometime between the holding of the 2011 General Election and the appointment of the Government. No such event occurred at the time stated by the Deputy.

However, I do recall an occasion in 2009, or possibly late 2008, when there was a Garda night-time mandatory checkpoint in Pembroke Street in Dublin. There was a queue of motorists and when I was reached, like those before me, my Road Tax and Insurance discs were checked and I was asked to exhale into a breathalyser. I did so but failed to fully complete the task due to my being asthmatic. I explained this to the Garda. I also explained that I was on my way home from Dáil Éireann and that I had consumed no alcohol of any nature that day. The Garda consulted with another Garda and I was waved on. There was no question of my having consumed any alcohol, nor of my having committed any offence under the Road Traffic Acts. I heard no further of the matter until I learnt it was raised by Deputy McGrath in questions today to the Tánaiste.

To avoid any doubt or confusion, the incident I referenced in the Dáil on Tuesday evening was an occasion when I was in a Bus Lane at about 11.30 am on Ormond Quay in Dublin some years ago. A Garda on a motorbike stopped by my car and directed me to roll down my window and informed me I should not be in a Bus Lane. I explained that the signage detailed that all vehicles could travel in it between 10am and 12 noon. No more was said and he moved on.

Cody Pomeray

Non issue, clearly.

mikehammer67

hmm......

apparently there's a garda record on the breathalyzer incident

it's not over yet


seems like he had a lot of difficulty at the scene
-asthmatic
-on his way from the dail

very complicated

Sierra Oscar

I predict that the Minister is unlikely to be in the job this time next week.

mikehammer67

mikehammer67 wrote: »

hmm......
apparently there's a garda record on the breathalyzer incident
it's not over yet
seems like he had a lot of difficulty at the scene
-asthmatic
-on his way from the dail
very complicated

Very complicated, but plausable. Oh, Mattie. Talk your way out of this one!

seamus

Routine checkpoint, valid reason for non-provision, Garda waved him on.

Complete non-issue, Shatter has no more questions to answer unless Mattie has can provide any evidence.

mikehammer67

seamus wrote: »

Routine checkpoint, valid reason for non-provision, Garda waved him on.

Complete non-issue, Shatter has no more questions to answer unless Mattie has can provide any evidence.

i must try that some time

'sorry i can't blow i've got asthma' see if i get waved on

kippy

mikehammer67 wrote: »

i must try that some time

'sorry i can't blow i've got asthma' see if i get waved on

Yeah,
I would have thought that some evidence would be required for that or at least a requirement to give a urine or blood sample.
Did the Gardai exercise some discretion in not asking him for either?

HurtLocker

Wallace was attacking garda discretion although he himself received discretion when caught using a phone while driving.

Shatter could not complete a breathalyzer because of his asthma apparently and used the constitution to avoid it. He could have not bothered with the test in the first place if he wanted. No laws broken and any and every TD can do this tonight if they are stopped.

I don't like this dirty politics. But if we are too keep going I think every TD should have all their encounters with the guards released.