More than 70 years ago, in the early days of Ireland's new independence, the State visited a serious injustice upon a man who had sworn an oath to serve it loyally and well. The case of William Geary, which is reported in this newspaper today, is unresolved but the opportunity yet exists for the State to put matters to rights, to acknowledge its mistake and to restore an elderly man's good name.
William Geary was dismissed by order of the Executive Council - as the Cabinet was then known - in 1928. As a commissioned officer in the Garda Siochana, he held office - and could be removed from office - at the pleasure of the Government. Mr Geary was a superintendent in the then troubled county of Clare. He was accused of accepting a bribe from the IRA and dismissed without a formal inquiry, without having an opportunity to defend himself and without being presented with the evidence against him.
He protested his innocence at the time and has continued to do so since, petitioning successive governments and ministers for justice to re-open his case and to allow an examination of the files. He insists there can be no valid evidence against him and if there are details in the files which can throw light upon his dismissal he wants the opportunity to deal with them. Now, for the first time, the Department of the Taoiseach has agreed to hand over such information as it possesses to Mr Geary and the Department of Justice is agreeable in principle "in view of the humanitarian considerations involved" to release the records it holds on the case.
It may be that the contents of the files are inconclusive. Indeed, it may be that details will be found which appear to be unhelpful to Mr Geary's claim. It is unlikely that the Free State authorities would have chosen to dismiss a senior officer of its fledgling police force on a whim. But there is a strong probability that Mr Geary was a victim of dirty tricks or was set up in some way because of the vigour with which he was discharging his duties in difficult times.
The onus should not be upon Mr Geary to disprove his guilt. It should now be upon the State to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he was guilty as accused in 1928. If that cannot be done, he is entitled to be exonerated, his name cleared and his honour restored. It is clear from the opinion of Professor Walsh, which is also published today, that Mr Geary was denied natural justice in the manner of his dismissal. If an identical case were to arise today and handled in the same manner, the dismissal would be set aside. The precedent in the Garvey case, which is quoted by Professor Walsh, established that a process which violates natural justice is invalid. Commissioner Garvey was never validly dismissed. It is arguable that the same applies to William Geary.
Mr Geary will by 100 years old this month. He reconstructed his life successfully and bravely in the United States and he remains healthy, lucid and committed to clearing his name. The Taoiseach and the Government have responded with humanity to his request to have his files made available. It is now essential that they be examined swiftly and that an early determination be reached on Mr Geary's call for an exoneration of the charges laid against him in 1928. An injustice is an injustice, for all that it may have taken place more than 70 years ago. Mr Geary's longevity may not be unconnected with his determination to see his case resolved. But his time must be limited and the State's further actions must take account of that.