Garda/DPP use forged document to protect a priest from rape allegation

recedite

The letter read: “Dear Sir, I (illegible) to yours. In (illegible) the statement of the complainant...could not possibly form the basis of a prosecution given that the complainant’s allegation of rape is only conjecture.”

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/circuit-court/garda-told-supervisor-she-did-not-have-skills-to-forge-letter-1.2123408

The detective was unable to detect that the document was a forgery, and the victim was told that the case was going nowhere.

The IT article is slightly out of date now, in that the case is over and the detective has been acquitted. Nobody has been found guilty of forging the letter, and there is no reference in the public domain to any attempt to find out who forged it.
On the basis that Somebody must have done it, it seems it can only have been orchestrated from within either the Garda station or the DPP's office.

magicbastarder

recedite wrote: »

On the basis that Somebody must have done it, it seems it can only have been orchestrated from within either the Garda station or the DPP's office.

surely a 'not guilty' verdict is not proof that the accused did not do it, but a judgement that there was insufficient evidence to prove they did?

recedite

Yes, in other words they are to be considered innocent.

recedite

Treading carefully now, because we don't want any libel in here
I see three theoretical possibilities as to what happened;

1. The accused Garda was in reality guilty, but was acquitted because of a lack of proof.

2. There was sufficient evidence, but the members of the jury allowed their own religious convictions to take over, and felt that the perpetrator's actions were righteously and divinely inspired, and so the ends justified the means. In which case the other Gardai and the DPP cannot be blamed, because they did their best to prosecute the case.

3. The accused Garda did not forge the document, but was given it by a (possibly higher ranking) colleague or by the office of the DPP, and told to present it to the victim.

I don't think we could say "justice has been done" if any of these 3 scenarios were true. Can anyone think of any other possible scenarios?

magicbastarder

what skills would you need to forge such a letter? was it access to headed notepaper, forging a signature, wording it convincingly?

recedite

I think it was a photocopy of another official letter, with the original text and name blanked out and replaced with some rather unconvincing new wording.

Also this brings to the fore whether the swearing in of witnesses and jurors on the bible is appropriate, when the case may involve somebody putting religion above the law.

A large proportion of the population are susceptible to the fundamentalist world view that tends to see everything in black and white terms. You're either on the right side or you're on the wrong side.

Watching the witnesses being sworn in, hand on the bible, it could reinforce in the minds of the jury that they are being asked to make a judgement, in the eyes of god. They must choose which side they are on; truth and righteousness, or else lies and damnation.

They might tend to think that central issue (ie who produced this or that document) was a technicality. They might start to think that protecting a righteous man, and the church itself, was a higher ideal.

Peregrinus

Couple of thoughts:

First, yes, recedite, be very careful of defamation. The header to this thread is misleading (I think) and you may want to ask the mods to change it. The allegation is not that a forged document was used to protect a priest from a rape allegation. According to the charge, the document was dated 14 January 2009, and was actually forged on 15 January 2009, and was sent to the Murphy Tribunal. That was about when the Murphy Tribunal (2006-2009) was completing its investigations and preparing its final report. But the Murphy Tribunal was investigating historic allegations of child abuse and how they were handled. In other words, this was a letter ostensibly justifying a no-prosecution decision that had already been taken. The letter cannot have influenced the decision. It was intended not to protect the priest, but to protect those who had decided not to prosecute him.

Secondly, the obvious inference is that whoever forged the letter felt that the no-prosecution decision was likely to be criticised. But we don’t know on what grounds it might have been criticised. Nothing in the reported facts suggests that the no-prosecution decision was the result of pressure from the church authorities, or a desire to protect the church or its clergy, and there was no evidence that McGowan had any link to this priest, or any protective attitude towards priests generally, or towards the church. A useful general rule is never to attribute to conspiracy that which can be explained by simple incompetence. The investigation might have been sloppily conducted due to a guard being overworked, or incompetent, or not properly resourced, or bribed, or careless. Somebody might have felt that they had dropped the ball on this, and been anxious to cover their tracks, for reasons which are wholly unconnected with the fact that the suspect was a cleric.

Thirdly, I think it’s drawing a very long bow to suggest that the acquittal was in any way linked to a belief on the part of jurors that forgery to protect clerics is justified by a Higher Moral Imperative, and an even longer bow to suggest that this is any way linked to the practice of witnesses taking religious oaths. (There may be good arguments against religious oaths in court but, seriously, this is not one of them.) While it’s perhaps conceivable that one or two jurors might take the view the forgery to protect the church was justified, this acquittal was unanimous. Reading the newspaper reports, a more plausible account of the jury’s verdict was that they might have been satisfied that the letter was forged, but they were not satisfied that the state had shown beyond reasonable doubt that McGowan had forged it.

The state’s case seems to have been poor partly because of shoddy record-keeping at Bray Garda station. The filing system, was said to be “fairly haphazard”, the file store was a tip and in an (unrelated to this case) audit of files by the Garda Professional Standards Unit something like 30% of the files requested from Bray Garda Station could not be found. The file relating to this case could also not be found, which meant it was difficult to say either that the no-prosecution decision was objectively unjustified or that Garda McGowan was primarily responsible for the no-prosecution decision. And that’s a fairly big hole in the evidence, when your case is that Garda McGowan stuffed up the original investigation, and later forged the letter to cover try and conceal her stuff-up.

Fourthly, it’s correct to say that nobody else has been charged with, or accused of, forging the letter. On the one hand, McGowan’s acquittal was only last week. On the other hand, though, it’s very unlikely that anyone else ever will be charged.

The reason for this is not, I emphasise, that McGowan must have done it. In reality, once A has been prosecuted for a particular crime and acquitted, it is vanishingly rare for B to be prosecuted for the same crime and convicted. The reason is that B cannot be convicted unless it is shown beyond reasonable doubt that he did it, and to secure B’s acquittal the defence simply has to re-present enough of the evidence that was produced in the prosecution of A to raise a reasonable doubt that A could perhaps have done it.

recedite

Some good points, as usual Peregrinus. However, as usual I have to differ on some...

Peregrinus wrote: »

But the Murphy Tribunal was investigating historic allegations of child abuse and how they were handled. In other words, this was a letter ostensibly justifying a no-prosecution decision that had already been taken. The letter cannot have influenced the decision. It was intended not to protect the priest, but to protect those who had decided not to prosecute him.

The case was still open and active in 2009, and not a historic case. I don't know when the offences are alleged to have been committed (there may have been a delay in reporting them) but it is reported that the complainant went to the Gardai in 2007 and the forgery was used in 2009 to fob off the complainant who was still anxious at that time to press charges.

The complainant in the clerical abuse allegation has testified that in late 2009 Det McGowan told her she had sent a file to the DPP and the DPP had directed no prosecution.

source
At that stage, in 2009, it would have been much simpler, safer and easier to send the file in to the DPP, such as it was, than to use a forged document to "bury" the investigation without sending it in.

The first witness, Sergeant Diane Swift, told the jury a special task force was set up in the aftermath of the Murphy Report by the Garda Commissioner to investigate how sex abuse cases were handled by the church and state authorities.
Sgt Swift said the unit, which was based in Harcourt Square, investigated allegations in relation to 46 priests named in the Murphy report and that she was assigned one priest who had 500 documents relating to allegations against him. Sgt Swift said she contacted one of the alleged victims who said she was sexually abused by the priest for three years from when she was 16.The sergeant said she contacted Garda McGowan who said she was still working on the case but “that it was going nowhere anyway.”

source

Peregrinus wrote: »

Secondly, the obvious inference is that whoever forged the letter felt that the no-prosecution decision was likely to be criticised. But we don’t know on what grounds it might have been criticised. Nothing in the reported facts suggests that the no-prosecution decision was the result of pressure from the church authorities, or a desire to protect the church or its clergy, and there was no evidence that McGowan had any link to this priest, or any protective attitude towards priests generally, or towards the church. A useful general rule is never to attribute to conspiracy that which can be explained by simple incompetence....

If the forgery had been initiated in 2011 when the original investigation was being reviewed by the specialist Harcourt Square unit then you would have a point. It would have been back dated to 2009 in order to "protect the original no-prosecution decision" as you put it. I suppose that is possible, but it would not explain why the Garda told the complainant back in 2009 that the instruction had been received from the DPP. So the intent to deceive was hatched back in 2009, regardless of when the forgery was actually forged.

Peregrinus wrote: »

Thirdly, I think it’s drawing a very long bow to suggest that the acquittal was in any way linked to a belief on the part of jurors that forgery to protect clerics is justified by a Higher Moral Imperative...
a more plausible account of the jury’s verdict was that they might have been satisfied that the letter was forged, but they were not satisfied that the state had shown beyond reasonable doubt that McGowan had forged it.

I mentioned the bible thing more as "an aside". This is the sort of case where it could be inappropriate to invoke the fear of god in jurors. On the other hand, it could be highly effective for compelling certain witnesses to come clean.
Either way, I have no idea what went on in the minds of the jury in this particular case, and I'm not speculating on that.

The defence barrister seemed to be implying that his client was scapegoated, and that it was not mere "incompetence" that caused the files to disappear.

He said that when her Detective Inspector, Frank Keenaghan, confronted her in April 2011 with what counsel described as the "sloppiest forgery you're ever likely see" she refused to take the "easy way out".
"He was offering her a deal - admit you've done wrong. You're caught but here's the easy way out. She said no, there isn't an easy way out. She was told take an hour to think about it. She said: 'I don't need an hour, I've done nothing wrong'.
"This is very strong evidence that she believed that she had done nothing wrong," he said.
He put it to the jury that someone had a vested interest in making the investigation into this clerical abuse allegation go away in 2009 and that documents which would have assisted his client's defence had gone missing.

source

BTW I did not say that the priest was protected because he was a priest. I'm saying a deceit was inexplicably used to fob off the complainant, which protected the priest. So IMO the original thread title is justified, but if mods wish to alter it, I'm fine with that.

Peregrinus

On review, I think you're right, at least to some extent. The case was still open until 2011. But I think that's in fact only because there had never been a prosecution decision, one way or another, from the DPP, and that is because, whether deliberately or inadvertantly, the case had not been referred for a decision when it should have been, in 2007. in fact the (effective) action (or inaction) to close down had been taken in 2007, and what was being actively considered in 2009 was not the conduct of the priest, but the conduct of the investigating guards. From the reports, it's explicit that the the State claimed that the purpose behind the forgery of the letter was . . .

". . . to “hoodwink” gardaí who were reviewing whether she had acted properly in investigating allegations of sexual abuse by a priest of a teenage girl." (Source.)

So I think my basic point is correct. The letter was not forged to protect the priest, but later, to protect those who had already (for whatever reason or motive) acted to protect the priest. My sense is that the action (or inaction) which protected the priest was effectively taken in 2007 when the case was passed to McGowan, and McGowan interviewed the complainant (who wished for charges to be pressed) but the file was never sent to the DPP for a prosecution decision. The letter was cooked up to make it look as if the file had been sent to the DPP, and a decision taken not to prosecute.

(As a footnote, it's worth noting that in 2011 the matter was referred to the DPP and a decision was taken not to prosecute the priest. Whether this is because the prosecution case had been fatally weakened by all these shenanigans, or because the prosecution was weak to begin with, or for other reasons, we don't know. It would be richly ironic if somebody suppressed an investigation, and later forged documents to conceal the suppression, to prevent a prosecution which, on the merits, was never going to be brought anyway.)

expectationlost

juries find it very hard to convict gardai too

recedite

Peregrinus wrote: »

.. the case had not been referred for a decision when it should have been, in 2007. in fact the (effective) action (or inaction) to close down had been taken in 2007, and what was being actively considered in 2009 was not the conduct of the priest, but the conduct of the investigating guards.

No, I think the investigation only started in 2007 and was active until 2009 when it was shut down, using the deceit. Whether the actual forgery existed in 2009 or not is in dispute or unclear, but the complainant was told it was the reason for no prosecution, and the Garda said that she had it on file then (but thought it was genuine). The jury must have accepted this version, because they acquitted her.
In 2011 a copy of the forgery was presented to the Harcourt Square detective, who was reviewing the original investigation. At that stage the original investigation was technically still open, but inactive. So that is apparently the first time anyone other than the original Garda is saying they actually saw the document.

Anyway, I'm inclined to agree that we'll probably never find out what really happened. And whoever did it has now "got away with it".

Peregrinus

No, the charge against McGowan specifically states that the letter (dated 14 Jan 2009) was forged on 15 Jan 2009, which means the state knows (and can prove) that it existed at that point. McGowan gave evidence that she had delivered a copy of the letter to the Tribunal herself. This must have been in 2009, the year in which the Tribunal completed its review of allegations against priests, and how they were handled. I'm going to hazard a guess that she in fact delivered it to them on 15 January 2009.

To my mind the timeline looks like this:

2006 - Complainant reports abuse, but does not wish offender to be prosecuted.

2007 - Complainant comes back to guards, says she now wishes offender to be prosecuted. Guard who handled the matter in 2006 has been transferred to Galway, so case is assigned to McGowan. McGowan takes statement from complainant, but no evidence that she does anything more.

2009. Case is included in batch that Murphy Tribunal is investigating. Letter is allegedly forged. Letter is given to Tribunal by McGowan. Later in the same year complainant contacts McGowan to ask what is happening, is told there will be no prosecution.

2011 (or earlier?): Garda unit reviews handling of case. Not clear whether this is because complainant has been pressing to know why no prosecution, or because letter delivered to Tribunal has aroused suspicion, or for some other reason.

2011. Letter is identified as forgery. McGowan is spoken to, denies forging letter, denies any knowledge that it is a forgery.

Also 2011. Definitive decision not to prosecute alleged offender.

There's no evidence that there were any steps taken to progress the inquiry after McGowan interviewed the complainant in 2007. Other steps should certainly have been taken, including interview of alleged offender, interview of other potential witnesses (if any), forwarding of file to DPP's office. So while case wasn't closed in 2007, it does appear that whether by deliberate decision or by simple omission the investigation was derailed at that time.

It's not clear whether this happened because McGowan (or someone else) was motivated to protect the alleged offender, or for some other reason - overwork, oversight, stress, case put in the "too hard" basket, whatever.

While the motivation for forging the letter in 2009 could have been to protect the alleged offender, we don't need to hypothesise this. We already have a sufficient motivation in the fact that the case hadn't progressed since 2007 - the forgery can be adequately explained by the need to protect whoever's fault or negligence had derailed the case in 2007.

recedite

I don't know where you got this from;

Peregrinus wrote: »

2006 - Complainant reports abuse, but does not wish offender to be prosecuted.

But other than that, your timeline seems OK.

Peregrinus wrote: »

While the motivation for forging the letter in 2009 could have been to protect the alleged offender, we don't need to hypothesise this. We already have a sufficient motivation in the fact that the case hadn't progressed since 2007 - the forgery can be adequately explained by the need to protect whoever's fault or negligence had derailed the case in 2007.

You keep suggesting that the motivation was laziness, but I can't see any logic in that. The investigation only started around 2007 (or 2006 if you are right) and in 2009 it was still open. There was no need to cover up anything. Why would a Garda risk their career by creating a forged DPP document when all they had to do was send the half-investigated file in to the DPP in 2009? That was the lazy option.The DPP would have replied with a genuine letter advising no prosecution.

Consider the 2 years between 2007 and 2009 that the original investigation was running without outside interference. Compare to the later investigation of the forgery itself, which has only come to trial now in 2015, but was uncovered back in 2011.
The original 2 years does not seem a ridiculously long time for an investigation to be open. Would she have been held to be negligent because she had not concluded the original investigation within the 2 years? In the mind of your hypothetical lazy Garda, would any potential recriminations for the slow pace have justified the risk of forging DPP documents? It seems unlikely and implausible.

Peregrinus

recedite wrote: »

I don't know where you got this from;
But other than that, your timeline seems OK.

The fact that the complaint was first reported to the guards in 2006 (in fact, 2005 and 2006) but the complainant wasn't ready to support a prosecution is reported here.

recedite wrote: »

You keep suggesting that the motivation was laziness, but I can't see any logic in that. The investigation only started around 2007 (or 2006 if you are right) and in 2009 it was still open. There was no need to cover up anything. Why would a Garda risk their career by creating a forged DPP document when all they had to do was send the half-investigated file in to the DPP in 2009? That was the lazy option.The DPP would have replied with a genuine letter advising no prosecution.

I don't think so. If the file had been sent to the DPP in 2009 it would have been evident that no proper investigation had been undertaken, so the failure/omission would have come to light, and this was precisely what MGowan was trying to avoid. The letter was created to make it look as if the file had been sent to the DPP, in order to avoid the need actually to send it.

I'm not suggesting, incidentally, that the failure to progress the investigation was the result of laziness. There could have been any number of causes, or I suppose a combination of causes - I have suggested sever in this thread. But the bottom line is that we don't know what the cause was, and the prosecution didn't suggest any particular cause.

It could have been a desire to protect the priest/the church, but we have no reason to pick that cause out of other possible causes. (And FWIW the prosecution did look for any personal connection between McGowan and the priest, and could find none.)

But I would suggest this; if the desire was to protect the offender, simply neglecting to progress the file and later forging a letter from the DPP was a pretty uncertain way of proceeding. A much more effective course would have been for the guard to progress the investigation, interview other witnesses, and then write up notes of interviews which omitted one or two salient points, or spun what was said in a way that would suggest a prosecution case would be weak or incomplete, or a witness would be less confident than in fact he or she appeared to the guard. Then send the file to the DPP and get the expected negative reply. I think an experienced detective - McGowan is 48 - could do this without too much difficulty, and it would present much less risk to her personally than forging a letter. And it would result in the file actually closing, which is the outcome most likely to protect the offender.