Apology by the Minister for Justice in Dáil Éireann to Shane O’Farrell and the family of Shane O’Farrell

Check against delivery

Ceann Comhairle, when Shane O’Farrell left his home in Carrickmacross on the evening of 2 August 2011 to go on a cycle in preparation for a charity triathlon, he had his whole life ahead of him. At 23 years of age, Shane had secured a Law degree from UCD, had just completed his Masters in Law at Trinity College Dublin, and would no doubt have proceeded to commence a professional career that would have been as distinguished as his student career.

That life was never lived because Shane was killed that evening. His loss was incalculable. His family’s was interminable.

I know how much pain the O’Farrell family have gone through since they were informed that day of Shane’s death. There is nothing that I nor the Irish Government can do to alleviate that pain. What I can do, however, is record how the justice system that operated at the time exposed Shane to a threat to which he should not have been exposed.

For many years the O’Farrell family have sought a Public Inquiry. In fact, this House voted on 14 June 2018 and 10 July 2024 for the establishment of such an Inquiry. The Seanad voted for one on 13 February 2019. The purpose of an inquiry is not to administer justice but to reveal and report on facts that are of public importance. Many of the facts associated with Shane’s death have already been established, mainly through the indefatigable work of his loving mother Lucia. We could spend many years inquiring into these facts - facts that are already known - in the hope or expectation that a Chairperson of such an Inquiry would report them in a manner sympathetic and favourable to the facts as presented to me by the O’Farrell Family.

I need neither more, nor further entrenchment, of those facts in order to face up to my responsibility as Minister for Justice and the State’s responsibility for failings in our system that exposed Shane to danger on that fateful day. It is part of the heavy burden that I carry as Minister for Justice that I must confront these failings in our criminal justice system. I do not need to wait for 5 years for an Inquiry to tell me about those failings. I do not need a Report to force me into Dáil Éireann to give the apology to the O’Farrell family that I humbly give today.

The purpose of Inquiries is twofold: to establish facts and to effect consequences that derive from those facts. We have many of the facts. I now want to proceed to the consequences.

Primary responsibility for Shane’s death rests with Zigimantas Gridziuska, the Lithuanian man who, having been stopped by the Garda Drugs squad an hour before Shane was killed, drove the car that struck Shane from behind. He failed to stop and remain at the scene. Subsequently that night he hid his vehicle away from his home. When he returned to his home that night, he told his wife that he had knocked someone down yet they both then went to bed. Neither of them called emergency services. The driver was prosecuted in February 2013 for dangerous driving causing Shane’s death. He was acquitted of that charge by direction of the trial judge. Unfortunately, a lesser charge of careless driving was not open to the jury.

Prior to Shane’s death Zigimantas Gridziuska had repeated interactions with the criminal justice system, with his first conviction in Ireland occurring in March 2008. His repeated offending and the State’s response to his consistent breach of Court Orders and sentences merits repetition before this House. It is an illustration of the havoc and, as we know, tragedy that can derive from the actions of a recidivist offender who is not held to appropriate account by our criminal justice system.

These are the facts that we know about his criminal behaviour in the 24 months prior to Shane’s death.

We know that on 27 January 2010 he was remanded on continuing bail in relation to four offences, having previously been granted bail for another offence on 28 August 2009.

On 12 May 2010 Gridziuska was charged with 2 theft offences and was sent forward for trial on indictment to Monaghan Circuit Court.

On 9 June 2010 Gridziuska was charged before Carrickmacross District Court with 4 offences of possession of heroin. He received a 6-month concurrent sentence for two of these convictions, and a 3-month conviction for one other, with the final conviction being taken into consideration when imposing sentence.

On the same day, 9 June 2010, he filed an appeal against these convictions and lodged €1,000 in lieu of surety. This resulted in him being released from custody on that day.

The first failing by the State arose here because the appeal documentation was wrongly filed with the result that the appeal was never processed within the District Court office in Monaghan. The appeal should have been recorded on the Criminal Cases Tracking System that is operated by the Courts Service. It wasn’t. Had it been recorded the appeal documentation would have been produced and the file would have been sent to the Circuit Court so that an appeal hearing could be arranged.

The failure to record this appeal meant that there was never a determination as to whether his 6-month sentence for the heroin offences should be activated. Instead by simply lodging an appeal on the day of his conviction Gridziuska avoided ever having to serve the sentence imposed.

It must also be recalled that on the same day, 9 June 2010, Gridziuska also faced four other charges before Carrickmacross District Court. He was charged with theft and also charged with theft and receiving, for both of which he was sent forward for trial to Monaghan Circuit Court.

Between 9 June 2010 and 11 January 2011 Gridziuska committed ten further offences, relating to road traffic offences, possession of heroin and theft offences. Four of these cases came before His Honour Judge John O’Hagan at Monaghan Circuit Criminal Court on 11 January 2011 and the Circuit Court Judge directed that they be adjourned for one year until 11 January 2012. The Judge said that if Gridziuska kept out of trouble and did not commit further offences the Judge would adopt a lenient approach. However, if he got into further trouble he was to be brought back before the Court and a custodial sentence would be imposed.

It is worth reciting the exact words used by Judge O’Hagan on that day. He said:

“If he does get into trouble again, it will come straight before me, anywhere on the Circuit, wherever I may be. You might even get a trip to Donegal, wherever it may be. Bring it in front of me and I will deal with Zigimantas Gridziuska. I am giving him this chance and this chance only. If he messes it up so be it. And I can assure you, Zigimantas Gridziuska, if you do mess this one up and you do get convicted, you will be going to prison; not you might; you will be going to prison.”

This is where the second failing of the State occurred because between this date of 11 January 2011 and Shane’s death he was charged with and/or committed 11 further offences, yet was not returned to Judge O’Hagan.

On 16 February 2011 Gridziuska was brought before Carrickmacross District Court on another drugs charge. He was convicted and sentenced to 6 months imprisonment. Again, he appealed his conviction, lodged €1,000 in lieu of surety and was again released. On this occasion his appeal papers were properly lodged. The failure of the State was that this conviction should have been brought to the attention of Judge O’Hagan who had very clearly indicated that any further offences should be brought to his attention.

On 23 February 2011 he was convicted of two counts of theft. On 8 March 2011 he was convicted of another theft charge before Cavan Circuit Court. None of these convictions were brought back before Judge O’Hagan. In fact, he was also arraigned on that date for another single theft charge that had been sent forward on 17 December 2010 from Virginia District Court.

The failure to notify Judge O’Hagan was again repeated when Gridziuska was convicted of 5 theft charges, committed over 5 days, before Ardee District Court on 9 May 2011, resulting in a 4-month suspended sentence. Once more, this conviction was not brought back to the attention of Judge O’Hagan. On 11 May 2011 he was convicted of speeding with no referral back to Judge O’Hagan.

On 8 June 2011 he was again convicted of a single drugs offence before Carrickmacross District Court and was fined €500. Again, this conviction was not brought back to the attention of Judge O’Hagan. It is also noteworthy that he received a conviction in Northern Ireland on 15 July 2011, and arrest warrants issued against him at that time were not executed.

The O’Farrell family believe, and I agree with them, that had those convictions on 16 February, 23 February, 8 March, 9 May, 11 May, 8 June, 15 July and 25 July 2011 been brought to the attention of Judge O’Hagan, as he directed in his ruling of 11 January 2011, the likelihood is that Gridziuska would have had a custodial sentence imposed upon him on any of those dates. Had this occurred, Gridziuska may not have been at large on that fateful day on 2 August 2011 when Shane was killed whilst on his bike.

Between 27 January 2010 and Shane’s death Gridziuska was convicted of 30 offences. We know that these 30 offences he committed before Shane’s death were committed whilst he was on bail, and we know that he was on bail for at least 6 offences on 2 August 2011.

Our criminal justice system at present requires under section 11 of the Criminal Justice Act 1984 that a person who is convicted of an offence whilst on bail should face a sentence consecutive to the offence for which bail was granted. However, the commission of an offence whilst on bail is not itself an offence in the same way as failing to appear before a Court in accordance with bail terms is an offence under section 13 of the Criminal Justice Act 1984. Nonetheless, it is a condition of every bail bond that an accused does not commit any further offences whilst on bail.

The legitimate questions that the O’Farrell family have asked are why the persistent breaches of bail conditions by Gridziuska, through the commission of further offences, did not trigger a response under our criminal justice code, and why were consecutive sentences not imposed in respect of the offences he committed whilst on bail, and why warrants that were issued were not executed.

On 26 January 2011, on 11 May 2011, and on 25 July 2011 Gridziuska breached his bail conditions when he was convicted of road traffic offences. None of these were brought back to the attention of Judge O’Hagan. More significantly, the 5 theft offences he was convicted of on 9 May 2011 were not brought back to the attention of Judge O’Hagan. In fact, the Court hearing those theft offences was not informed of Judge O’Hagan’s direction. Gridziuska was also charged with having no tax on his car on 6 April 2011 but this was not prosecuted until 16 November 2011.

It is clear that throughout this time he was ignoring the many different bail conditions set by the various courts.

It is clearly the case that many of the offences committed by Gridziuska whilst on bail were summary offences. The broader question that needs to be answered is how our criminal justice system should respond to a recidivist offender who persistently breaks summary laws and whether, even if the theft offences had been brought back to the attention of Judge O’Hagan, the Judge would have had the jurisdiction through statutory power to remand Gridziuska in custody.

In order to answer that policy question, I have asked Senior Counsel Lorcan Staines to assess our bail laws and make any recommendations he believes are appropriate taking into account the requirements of constitutional justice and the impossibility of refusing bail to every person accused of summary offences. I have required that this Report be finalised and presented to me within 4 months of his engagement. I have asked that he identify any necessary changes that need to be made to our laws in relation to bail and/or suspended sentences.

This is not a Report that needs to establish facts since those facts are very readily apparent from the charges laid against Garidziuska in the year leading up to the death of Shane O’Farrell. It will not result in people having to invoke their In Re Haughey rights and lawyering up in a process that would inevitably take years. More importantly, it will not need to establish any facts since the relevant facts are already known.

This year the government will also be seeking the amendment of section 53(4) of the Road Traffic Act 1961 in order to take into account one of the consequences of the trial of Gridziuska. As we are aware, he was acquitted, by direction of the trial Judge, of dangerous driving. The jury was not, however, permitted to proceed to consider the lesser charge of careless driving. It has been the law since 1962 that where a trial judge directs an acquittal of a person charged with Dangerous Driving, they cannot then be found guilty of the lesser offence of Careless Driving. The option of the lesser offence is available with a jury acquittal of Dangerous Driving and it is a serious flaw in our law that the option is not available in the event of an acquittal direction from the Judge.

I am pleased to say that the Minister for Transport, Darragh O’Brien TD, has agreed to ensure that section 53(4) of the Road Traffic Act 1961 be amended in the next Road Traffic Bill he will be introducing in the Dail this year. This will be the second change to our law achieved as a result of the tireless campaigning of Shane’s family. Section 17 of the Road Traffic Act 2014 was also introduced in memory of Shane and as a necessary correction of our law. It established a new indictable offence of leaving the scene of an accident where an injury or death has occurred.

This Review of our Bail laws and the further proposed change to our laws that I announce today are a reflection of how the criminal justice system did not protect Shane O’Farrell. Our laws will be changed to reflect his memory.

In light of the failings in the criminal justice system that I have outlined in this speech, it is incumbent on me as Minister for Justice to apologise to Shane O’Farrell and the O’Farrell family for the fact that the criminal justice system did not protect him as it should have. I do so apologise.

However, we should also remember Shane not just because of how he died but also because of how he lived and what his life may have been. Shane was a law graduate of UCD and TCD. He respected and obeyed the law. He was destined for a career in the law. Nothing I can do can realign that trajectory of a life stolen in its prime.

We can, however, commemorate that life. I am honoured to announce that the Department of Justice will fund every year a scholarship in the name of Shane O’Farrell that will be awarded to a student who distinguishes him or herself in the Masters in Law degree at University College Dublin. The Shane O’Farrell award will confer on its recipients, in perpetuity, the honour of the excellence by which Shane lived his short but exemplary life.

It is my sincere hope that what I have said today on behalf of the Department of Justice and on behalf of the Government of Ireland will provide some peace to the O’Farrell family.

I hope that the review of our Bail laws and the actions to be taken thereafter will help prevent other families having to suffer in the way the O’Farrell family have suffered.

And I hope the O’Farrell family can take pride and comfort in the fact that Shane’s memory will live on through the scholarship at UCD.

I finish by saying something to the family of Shane O’Farrell that I know every member of this House will agree with. It is because of the work and tireless campaigning of you, the O’Farrell family, that Shane will not be forgotten.