Three ministers at the time of the 1974 bombings have strongly disputed the Barron report, writes Mark Brennock, Chief Political Correspondent.
Mr Patrick Cooney, minister for justice in the 1973-1977 coalition, is the third minister from that government to dispute the criticisms made of it by the Barron report on the 1974 Dublin and Monaghan bombings.
Dr Garret FitzGerald, then minister for foreign affairs, wrote in this newspaper last Saturday that Mr Justice Barron had reached "incorrect conclusions" in his report.
Dr Conor Cruise O'Brien, quoted in last week's Sunday Independent, questioned several of the judge's key conclusions concerning the behaviour of the Cosgrave-led coalition in the wake of the bombings.
The points to which the former ministers have most strongly objected include the suggestion that the government of the day did not show sufficient concern about or interest in the bombings; failed to give gardaí information it had received politically; did not give political assistance to the investigation and may have intervened to have it ended prematurely.
In a lengthy statement yesterday, Mr Cooney rejected the significance of the finding that the government received information from the British prime minister, Mr Harold Wilson, that the British had intelligence naming the bombers but failed to pass it to the Garda or the Department of Justice.
In particular, Mr Wilson told the taoiseach and the then minister for foreign affairs, Dr Garret FitzGerald, that some of those believed to have carried out the attacks were then interned in Northern Ireland.
Mr Cooney said there could not be "the slightest doubt" that the RUC had told the Garda of the internment of these people already and it was "equally certain" that this information had been passed on to the Department of Justice.
He said the Barron report indicated that Army intelligence had also acquired this information and would have passed it on.
Therefore it would have been entirely unnecessary for the Taoiseach to convey this information to the Garda, as it was in possession of it already. Dr FitzGerald made the same point writing in this newspaper last Saturday.
According to Mr Cooney, the key personnel from the Department and Justice and the Garda were now regrettably dead. "This points up the futility of trying to inquire into events of so long ago."
He was "puzzled" by the judge's approach to this matter, as the judge himself noted "that the internments and possible links to the bombings had been reported in the public press so it wasn't exactly novel information that was conveyed by the British Prime Minister".
He also accused the judge of being "naïve" in thinking there was a "treasure trove" of evidence available as a consequence of the internment of the suspects. Internment only took place on suspicion: there was already plenty of suspicion in the minds of the Garda and RUC but no evidence. There had been no request from the Garda for political assistance and the Garda was the only body to know if such assistance would be useful.
He said there was no complaint from the Garda about lack of co- operation from the North and the Garda was on public record as having stated it was satisfied with the co-operation it received. "The allegation that the Government failed to apply political pressure is totally without foundation."
Mr Cooney also rejected the charge that the government of the day "failed to show the concern expected of it". He said he pointed out to the judge, in a letter while the inquiry was being carried out, that the taoiseach, Mr Liam Cosgrave, had issued a statement of sympathy on behalf of the government and the nation; Mr Cosgrave had strongly condemned the bombings and appealed to all citizens to assist the investigation and he had visited the injured in hospital in Dublin while he [Mr Cooney\] had visited the injured in Monaghan.
The Scheme of Compensation for Personal Injuries Criminally Inflicted, he added, was available to the injured and bereaved.
"Basic justice requires that the serious allegation comprised in this and the following conclusion, so disturbing to the victims and so damaging to those impugned, should be made on foot of evidence which was comprehensive, clear in detail and incontestable.
"Judge Barron has not offered evidence which exhibits these characteristics. Inferences and conclusions drawn from unidentified witnesses and from hearsay are not worth the paper they are written on."
He quotes from a letter he wrote to Mr Justice Barron last April, saying there had been no government interference designed to bring the investigation to an end. "There was no ambivalence with regard to terrorists of whatever hue. Unfortunately, there were occasions when there was not enough evidence forthcoming, in spite of the most diligent investigation, to procure convictions and the Dublin/Monaghan bombing is a tragic example of this."
The allegation of political interference designed to bring the Garda investigation to an end was very serious, he said.
He had asked the judge to put any reasons for sustaining this claim to him "in the interests of natural justice" but this had not happened, yet the claim had been published in the report. This was "outrageous".
Mr Cooney also referred to the suggestion that if the attorney general of the day had been consulted, he might have given advice as to what direction the inquiry might take. "This has the serious implication that this failure to consult was a factor in the failure to find evidence."
He said the then attorney general, Mr Declan Costello, had confirmed that he was not a legal adviser to the Garda. He only received a file when a decision had been reached that a prima facie case existed that a named individual had committed the crime.
"It is quite clear that Judge Barron has misunderstood the role and function of the attorney general in this regard and that, as a result, his conclusion No 5 is wrong and grievously misleading."
Following his meetings with Mr Justice Barron, he was uneasy in relation to "how he was perceiving and interpreting our talks, an unease compounded by the inadequate and, indeed, misleading notes of the meetings and which I believe are his only records."
He had therefore asked the judge for sight of the draft report as it affected him or the government of the day, but had been refused on the basis that this was not within the terms of his appointment.
He felt this was "disingenuous for it is highly unlikely that the terms of his appointment precluded it. If he had disclosed a draft, egregious errors as exemplified above could have been avoided."
Mr Cooney concluded with a general criticism. "This report should be regarded with circumspection for much of its reasoning is opaque and it relies excessively on hypotheses, as it is forced to because its subject happened so long ago."