THE inquiry in the Department of Justice has baulked at blaming individual civil servants for the "quite inexcusable" failure to implement the Government decision to delist Judge Dominic Lynch from the Special Criminal Court.
When it published the inquiry's report late last night, the Government decided to remove the names of officials from the published version "for reasons of natural justice" and replace them with alphabetical designations - Official A, B, C and so on.
The main finding of the report, approved for publication after a three-hour Cabinet meeting, was that the paper frail in relation to the Government decision "ran into the sand". The report concluded that "nothing short of comprehensive transformation of the Department of Justice is called for".
Mr Sean Cromien and Dr Edmond Molloy, who headed the inquiry into the sequence of events which led to the failure to communicate the Government decision of August 1st to Judge Lynch, concluded: "The results of our efforts to follow the `paper trail' came to an unsatisfactory dead-end at crucial points, with key individuals unable to recollect important details, or failing to recognise the seriousness of vital correspondence."
The report concluded that human error in this case cannot be explained away entirely as being due to organisational, management and systems weaknesses. But Government spokesmen could not clarify last night whether disciplinary action would be taken against any officials.
The findings of the report are likely to provoke heated exchanges in the Dail when a two-day debate commences today because all questions to the Taoiseach on the Attorney General's role have been ruled out of order.
The Minister for Justice, Mrs Owen, is expected to announce a package of measures "to deal with the issues of the utmost gravity raised in the report" later today.
Three lines of inquiry are listed in the report where the paper trail ran into the sand in the Department of Justice. The Government decision to delist Judge Lynch - "a signal that any consequent action should be put in hand immediately" - was circulated to five officials, including the Secretary and programme manager of the Department. The inquiry failed to establish what happened to the three copies of the decision furnished to the Courts Division. But no action was taken on it.
Turning to the circumstances surrounding the receipt of the Attorney General's first warning letter of October 2nd, it passed through the hands of a number of officials without leading to urgent action.
The inquiry found that there was "a mystery" about Judge Lynch's "personal" letter of October 10th to the Minister for Justice "which we have been unable to resolve". It disappeared from view at one point "and no one whom we have questioned has any recollection of having seen it".
It also found that there was no procedure for removing a judge from the panel of judges of the Special Criminal Court; an inappropriate organisation structure for the Courts Division and the Department of Justice as a whole; very weak management processes; work overload; staff inexperience and poor handover from previous incumbents and human error.
For a Department which dealt with such sensitive issues, the absence of written procedures constituted a very significant weakness.
The authors stated that if the report was to be published and then left, after a flurry of activity, to gather dust, it would not be the first time that such a fate befell such a report. "In view of all that has been said in this report and in the wider public arena over many years about the Department of Justice, this should be a defining moment for the Department", they added.
There are a few interesting features to the report which are likely to cause further political controversy when the findings are debated today
While the first letter from the Attorney General, Mr Gleeson, is published in the report with his permission, the second more controversial letter of November 1st is not published. The Taoiseach, Mr Bruton, told the Dail last week that it would set a precedent to publish it because it contained legal advices.
