Book Review: The Blue Wall of Silence: The Morris Tribunal and

Irish Journal of Applied Social Studies Irish Journal of Applied Social Studies

Volume 11 Issue 1

2012

Book Review: The Blue Wall of Silence: The Morris Tribunal and Book Review: The Blue Wall of Silence: The Morris Tribunal and

Police Accountability in Ireland Police Accountability in Ireland

Shane Kilcommins

University College Cork

Follow this and additional works at: https://arrow.tudublin.ie/ijass

Recommended Citation Recommended Citation

Kilcommins, Shane (2012) "Book Review: The Blue Wall of Silence: The Morris Tribunal and Police

Accountability in Ireland,"

Irish Journal of Applied Social Studies

: Vol. 11: Iss. 1, Article 5.

doi:10.21427/D73140

Available at: https://arrow.tudublin.ie/ijass/vol11/iss1/5

56 Irish Journal of Applied Social Studies

Conway, V. (2010). The blue wall of silence: The Morris Tribunal and

police accountability in Ireland. Dublin: Irish Academic Press.

ISBN: 97807165.

Review by: Shane Kilcommins

Faculty of Law, University College Cork

Vol. 11(1), 2011, 56-58

In March 2002, the Irish government established the Morris Tribunal to investigate

allegations of Garda misconduct arising out of the death of Richard Barron, who died

after being hit by a car in Raphoe, Co Donegal on the 14 October 1996. The

investigation took six years to complete, and the tribunal itself sat for 686 days of

hearings. Eight reports were published detailing hoax finds of explosives by the Gardaí,

the investigation into Richard Barron’s death, false arrests, the Garda use of informants,

abuse of detainees, the false issuing of search warrants, illegally obtained confessions,

allegations of harassment, and the effectiveness of the Garda Complaints Board . The

findings by the Morris Tribunal represented an infamous moment in the history of An

Garda Síochána that detailed systematised corruption, negligence, misconduct and a

‘blue wall of silence’ in the Donegal division of the force. Vicky Conway’s book

examines the conditions of emergence of the Tribunal in the context of Garda

accountability more generally; its terms of reference and findings; how these findings

were portrayed in media and political circles; and the reforms that emerged.

Dr Conway deserves credit for processing such a vast quantum of information into a

single, readable monograph. This was no easy task. The book itself has much to

commend it. There is a good structure, commencing with the incidents leading to the

investigation, the investigation itself, the findings, how they were received, and the

reform package that emerged. It is very well written and referenced. There is a good

examination of the history of Garda accountability. Dr Conway is also good at logging

the chronology of events leading up to the establishment of the Tribunal in 2002. There

is also a very good analysis of the politicised nature of the debate relating to the terms

of reference and the issue of Garda misconduct more generally. It is also very useful in

providing a synopsis of the module findings. More generally, the book offers a very

good critique of the impact that the Morris Tribunal has had on Garda accountability

and whether or not a sufficient level of reform has been achieved (the commentary and

analysis on reform at pages 123 to 169 is particularly strong). The author herself is, as

Professor Dermot Walsh noted in the foreword, ‘a leading member of a new generation

of academics’ who are enthusiastically applying their skills to the topic of Irish policing.

There are however a number of minor problems with the work that merit attention. To

begin with, it is written from a particular standpoint which in some instances limits the

possibilities for a fair and balanced account of all issues. This standpoint reveals itself

very early on in the book when Conway expresses her dismay about the ‘Guards blindly

receiving an exceptionally high level of public confidence’ (p. 7) despite the allegations

and revelations of misconduct in cases such as Nicky Kelly, Peter Pringle, Joanne

The blue wall of silence: The Morris Tribunal and police accountability in Ireland 57

Hayes, Paul Ward, Dean Lyons, John Carthy, Brian Rossiter, and Frank Shortt. Implicit

in the argument is that Irish society has been hoodwinked, that it needs to become more

aware of its false consciousness in respect of policing. No attempt is made however to

consider why the satisfaction ratings with the Gardaí are so high in Ireland, and why the

findings of the Morris Tribunal—which were undeniably very serious—might not have

a significant negative impact on such ratings. It is simply assumed that there is (or

should be) a simple hydraulic nexus between Garda satisfaction ratings and Garda

misconduct. In this regard it can be argued that Dr Conway has been overly constrained

by her standpoint. There are a myriad of determinants that shape such ratings. In large

part, they will be influenced by individual experiences of contact with the Gardaí. For a

very significant body of citizens, this contact is of a positive (not blind) kind — the

Gardaí provide reassurance and advice, ensure road safety standards, facilitate the free

flow of traffic, help with administrative matters such as the stamping of passports and

references, and are the primary contact point for reporting a crime. In these

circumstances, it is not surprising that satisfaction ratings remain high, despite the

evidence of very serious Garda misconduct in Donegal.

Some of the arguments also require further reflection. After a short analysis, she notes,

for example, at p. 23 that ‘the truth as determined by tribunals cannot ... be said

inherently to be objective’. This is a sweeping statement which raises more questions

than it can ever hope to answer in a book of this kind. Why, for example, are tribunals

not objective (even allowing for the leeways of language and the elusiveness of facts)?

Are other bodies such as Courts or Dáil sub-committees more objective? Can this

objectivity be measured? On the basis of the statement, does she not accept that the

findings of Morris are accurate? Similarly at pp. 106-11, it is claimed that there was a

fictional quality to the reporting of the findings in the media, and that their significance

was downplayed. She notes on p. 109:

The review of the print media also revealed presentations that challenged what

Morris had found: ‘Disgraced superintendent rejects findings of report’ (Irish

Examiner, 21 December 2004), one lawyer suggested that ‘Morris has agenda to

destroy officer’ (Irish Examiner 15 June 2005) and once action was taken we are

then informed that ‘Morris Tribunal Garda may take legal action over sacking’

(Irish Examiner,7 October 2004). These headlines serve to diminish, and even

discredit, the findings of the misconduct.

It is difficult to determine how these particular headlines discredit the findings of the

Tribunal, or why the print media is at fault. Statements of this kind appear to peddle

more in hyperbole than fact, and have a shoehorning feel to them. Were the headlines

inaccurate? Should the print media not report on all of the events relating to the

investigation? How do the headlines discredit the findings? The use of the word

‘disgraced’ in the first headline appears to point in the opposite direction to the point

she is trying to make, but no attempt is made to justify her interpretation. Dr Conway is

also disappointed with the ‘occasional’ media focus on the cost of the Tribunal which

she believes represents ‘one further attempt to detract from the work of the Tribunal’

(p.111). Again it is unclear why this is unfair or how it detracts from the findings. Aside

from these minor quibbles, this is a good book which will be of interest to anyone with

58 Irish Journal of Applied Social Studies

an interest in policing, the establishment and operation of Tribunals of Inquiry (and the

reforms arising therefrom), and the politicised nature of law and order.