Barr Tribunal Report Appendix 1

APPENDIX 1

Opening Statement of Mr. Justice Robert Barr, the Sole

Member of the Tribunal, made on 7th January, 2003

This is the first sitting of the Tribunal of Inquiry created by Resolutions passed by Da´il and Seanad E^´ireann on respectively 1 7th and 1 8th April, 2002 and by Instrument entitled Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act, 1921 (Establishment of Tribunal) Instrument (No. 2) 2002 made by the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform on 1st July, 2002.

There are three functions which the Tribunal will perform at this sitting. The first is to open and define the terms of reference contained in the foregoing Resolutions of the Houses of the Oireachtas. In that regard the Tribunal will specify in broad outline the questions and issues arising out of the fatal shooting of John Carthy which it proposes to address, including a review of relevant statute law and professional procedures in the light of the circumstances of Mr. Carthy’s death and his history of psychiatric disturbance.

The second function is to outline procedures which the Tribunal proposes to adopt in the conduct of its work.

Finally, the Tribunal will hear applications from parties seeking authorisation for representation at the Tribunal.

Before opening the Terms of Reference I wish to express my appreciation and thanks to the President of the High Court for his permission to sit in this court today and on next Friday, 1 0th instant when I will rule on applications for representation. The Tribunal is working from temporary premises in the Bar Council’s Distillery Building in Church Street pending the reconstruction and renovation of premises in the adjoining Jameson Building in Bow Street which it is hoped will be ready for occupation circa the end of this month. That premises includes a place for public hearings similar to a courtroom and other facilities for the public and media.

The Tribunal is represented by Mr. Michael MacGrath SC; Mr. Raymond Comyn SC; Mr. Patrick O’Dwyer BL and Ms Jennifer Bulbulia (researcher). The solicitor to the Tribunal is Mr. John V. Nolan and the registrar is Mr. John McGreevy. They are available to answer queries which any member of the public (whether a prospective witness or not) or organisation may have regarding the work of the Tribunal. Our telephone and fax numbers are 01 81 7 5290 and 01 81 7 5501 respectively. We hope to have email facilities and a web site shortly.

The Terms of Reference

Resolutions in the following terms were passed by Da´il E^´ireann and Seanad E^´ireann on respectively 1 7th and 1 8th April, 2002.

‘‘That Da´il E^´ireann [Seanad E^´ireann in its Resolution] resolves that it is expedient that a tribunal be established under the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Acts, 1921 to 2002, to inquire into the following definite matter of urgent public importance:

— the facts and circumstances surrounding the fatal shooting of John Carthy at Abbeylara, Co. Longford on 20 April, 2000;

and to report to the Clerk of Da´il E^´ireann and to make such findings and recommendations as it sees fit in relation to these matters;

And further resolves that:

(I) The Tribunal shall report to the Clerk of the Da´il on an interim basis not later than four months from the date of the establishment of the Tribunal and also as soon as maybe after the tenth day of any oral hearings of the Tribunal on the following matters:

(a) the number of parties granted representation by the Tribunal,

(b) the progress which will then have been made in the hearings and work of the Tribunal,

(d) any other matters that the Tribunal considers should be drawn to the attention of the Houses of the Oireachtas at the time of the report (including any matters relating to its terms of reference);

(II) the Inquiry shall be completed in as economical a manner as possible and at the earliest possible date consistent with a fair examination of the matters referred to it;

(III) all costs incurred by reason of the failure of individuals to co-operate fully and expeditiously with the Tribunal should as far as it is consistent with the interests of justice and the provisions of the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Acts, 1921 to 2002, be borne by those individuals.’’

Pursuant to the foregoing resolutions the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform established the Tribunal by Instrument given under his seal on 1st July, 2002. Having recited the foregoing resolutions of Da´il E^´ireann and Seanad E^´ireann, the instrument continues. ‘‘Now, I, Michael McDowell, TD, Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, in pursuance of those resolutions and in exercise of the powers conferred on me by Section 1 (1) (as adapted by the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence)

Act 1921 Adaptation Order 1936 (SR&O No. 25 of 1936)) of the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act 1921, make the following instrument:

1. This Instrument may be cited as the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act 1921 (Establishment of Tribunal) Instrument (No. 2) 2002.

2. A tribunal (hereinafter called ‘‘the Tribunal’’) is established to inquire into, report and make such findings and recommendations as it sees fit to the Clerk of Da´il E^´ireann on the definite matter of urgent public importance specified in the resolution passed by Da´il E^´ireann on 1 7 April 2002 and the resolution passed by Seanad E^´ireann on 18 April, 2002 the text of which resolutions is set out in the recital to this Instrument.

3. The Honourable Mr. Justice Robert Barr is appointed to be the sole member of the Tribunal.

4. The Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Acts 1921 to 2002 shall apply to the Tribunal.’’

Facts and issues which the Tribunal perceives arise out of the fatal shooting of John Carthy and are covered by the foregoing Resolutions of the Houses of the Oireachtas

The Tribunal has received in excess of 200 witness statements relating to the matters under investigation and also certain medical reports, including the State Pathologist’s report on John Carthy’s injuries at the time of death. Certain police and professional reports on procedures for adoption in relation to situations such as that which pertained at Abbeylara and culminated in the fatal shooting of John Carthy will be considered in evidence.

It is proposed to address the foregoing facts and issues in a series of modules the contents of which are as follows. The proposed contents are set out in broad outline hereunder but do not purport to be exhaustive.

First Module: Background to the fatal shooting of John Carthy

(a) Personal history, including his state of health and, in particular, his psychiatric condition at all material times.

His family circumstances and work history.

The deceased’s history as to the ownership and use of firearms. The history of licences granted to him in respect thereof.

His dealings with the Garda Sı´ocha´na in connection with his shotgun and the renewal of the licence in respect thereof from time to time.

Complaints made to local gardaı´ about Mr. Carthy’s possession of a firearm and alleged threats made by him.

His detention and questioning by local gardaı´ in September, 1998. The reason for his detention at that time; what transpired while he was in custody; the

(e)

(f)

(g)

period of detention and the outcome thereof. Was he previously or subsequently arrested, detained or questioned by the police?

(h) The effect (if any) on Mr. Carthy of his detention and questioning on that occasion in 1998 as to his attitude to the Garda Sı´ocha´na.

(i) His attitude towards the Garda Sı´ocha´na in the period January/April 2000, and, if hostile, the apparent reason for his hostility.

(j) Mr. Carthy’s state of mental health at the time of the confrontation at his home.

(k) Were the local gardaı´ or any of them aware that John Carthy had psychiatric or mental illness?

(l) If so, who was so aware; what did he/she understand the situation to be; where and how did he/she first learn of the deceased’s mental illness or psychiatric disorder?

(m) As to the deceased’s psychiatric condition; when did he and/or his family first become aware of it? Did he consult a general medical practitioner in that regard? If so, when, who, and how often? What illness or condition was diagnosed and what treatment was received by the patient? When was he first referred to a specialist in mental illness? To whom was he referred? What was his/her diagnosis? Did he have in-patient treatment for mental illness or psychiatric disturbance? If so, when, where and by whom? Was he under medical or psychiatric care as an out-patient or otherwise in the period January/April 2000?

(n) Was the deceased’s GP aware that his patient possessed a licenced shotgun? If so, when did he become so aware? Did he have any professional opinion as to whether Mr. Carthy was fit to have possession of a shotgun in April, 2000? If so, was the opinion canvassed by the gardaı´ at that time or at any prior date?

(o) Was Mr. Carthy’s psychiatrist of opinion that the deceased was fit to possess a shotgun at that time? Was that opinion canvassed by the gardaı´ then or previously?

(p) Did the deceased’s GP and/or psychiatrist take any action as to his continued possession of a shotgun in March/April, 2000 or previously?

(q) Did any member of the deceased’s family, neighbours or friends take any step to have the shotgun removed from the deceased’s possession prior to the fatal shooting? If so, what was done in that regard?

Second Module: The circumstances of the fatal shooting of John Carthy

(a) What gave rise to the event?

(b) What was the demeanour and conduct of John Carthy in the week prior to events at Abbeylara which culminated in his death?

(c) What gave rise to a request for police intervention at his home? Who made that request, when, to whom and what was said by and to the requester?

(d) What was the local garda response?

Who lead the local gardaı´ at the Carthy house?

Which local garda officers were dispatched to the deceased’s dwelling? When did they arrive there? What instructions were they given? What transpired when they first arrived? Which garda officer first contacted John Carthy at the scene after the arrival of gardaı´? How did he do so? What exactly did he say to Mr. Carthy and what was the response of the latter?

Who was in overall garda command at Abbeylara?

Did he or any officer at the scene have any particular instructions or training in dealing with an apparently dangerous man armed with a loaded shotgun who was not engaged in serious criminal activity per se, but was a person whose behaviour was likely to be the product of mental or psychiatric illness or other such disability?

(i) What contacts were made with John Carthy at Abbeylara by his family, friends, the gardaı´ or anyone else prior to the arrival of the Emergency Response Unit? What efforts were made to have a dialogue with Mr. Carthy. Who did so, how and when, and what response (if any) was made by him at that time?

(j) Who sent for the Emergency Response Unit? When and why?

(k) What was the extent of TV and radio publicity relating to the incident? How did that come about? Who arranged for the presence of the radio and TV media at the scene?

(l) What consultations took place between the deceased’s mother, sister or other members of his family, friends or neighbours with the gardaı´? When was such contact made? What was said and with what result?

(m) Was any neighbour or friend of the deceased consulted by the gardaı´?

(n) Was the deceased’s GP, psychiatrist or solicitor consulted by or on behalf of the gardaı´ or his family during the confrontation at Abbeylara?

(o) If so, were any of them brought to the scene to speak to John Carthy directly or by megaphone or telephone?

(p) Was he contactable by land phone or mobile? If so, what, if any, efforts were made to do so; when and by whom?

(q) Was a loud hailer or other such means used to communicate with John Carthy? If so, who did so, when, what was said and did he respond?

(r) What members of the Carthy family, friends, neighbours, his doctors or solicitor were present at or near the house when he emerged prior to being fatally shot?

(s) Did any member of John Carthy’s family, or any relation, friend, neighbour, medical or legal advisor offer to approach the dwelling with the intention of speaking to Mr. Carthy in the hope of calming him down and persuading him to hand over his shotgun? If so, what was the garda response to any such offer? Was contact made and, if so, with what result?

(t) Was Mr. Carthy provided with food and medication during the confrontation? Did he have food and water available to him in the house? Did he ask for cigarettes? If so, were they supplied? If not, why not?

Did he appear to be affected by alcohol, drugs or excess medication at any material time?

How many shotgun rounds were fired by John Carthy at or about his home during the event? When was each shot fired? Were they fired indiscriminately or at any particular target? What, if anything, was struck by each such shot?

Did John Carthy attempt to contact the gardaı´, any member of his family, any friend or neighbour, any doctor or solicitor during the event? If so, was contact made, and with what result?

Did any member of Mr. Carthy’s family, friend, neighbour, doctor or solicitor attempt to contact him at Abbeylara? If so, what transpired?

In addition to the Emergency Response Unit, how many other garda officers were present at the scene, hour by hour, up to the time of the fatal shooting?

Where were they deployed and were any of them armed? If so, did any such officer fire his weapon? In that event, who did so, why, when and what was fired at? What firearms did such officers have at the scene?

Third Module: The Garda Emergency Response Unit

(a) Its history.

(b) Its relevant training.

(c) The experience of each member thereof who was present at Abbeylara in the working of the unit. What prior experience did each have of active service with the unit?

What instructions and training did each member of the unit at Abbeylara have in the use of firearms against another person or persons?

Did the unit at Abbeylara receive any particular instructions in dealing with an apparently dangerous man armed with a loaded shotgun who was not engaged in serious criminal activity per se, but was a person whose behaviour was likely to be the product of mental or psychiatric illness or other such disability?

What instructions (if any) had members of the unit regarding the shooting of such a person if circumstances reasonably indicated that he had to be restrained in that way?

When did the unit arrive at Abbeylara and how was it deployed there? Who commanded the unit at Abbeylara?

What steps were taken by the unit to persuade John Carthy to surrender and/or hand over his shotgun?

Did the unit seek or have available to it advice from a psychologist, psychiatrist or other such expert in dealing with a dangerous armed person who was believed to have and to be motivated by psychiatric disturbance? If so, was any such assistance sought by or on behalf of the unit, when and with what result?

What was said by John Carthy to members of the unit during the event, in particular, what, if anything, did he say when he emerged from his home just

prior to being shot, or when he walked down to the road outside his dwelling at that time?

(l) What was said to the deceased at that time? Who spoke to him, what means was used and to what effect?

(m) What firearms did members of the Emergency Response Unit have at the scene? How many of them were present? Where was each deployed? How many fired their weapons prior to and up to the fatal shooting of the deceased? All such shots require to be described.

(n) How many shots in all were fired by garda officers at or about the Carthy dwelling?

(o) How many bullets struck John Carthy? Who was responsible for each such bullet, in particular that which appears to have caused his death, and where was each officer in relation to John Carthy when the various shots were fired?

(p) Having regard to the deployment of members of the unit, was it a feasible, realistic proposition to tackle Mr. Carthy as he moved from his house towards the road prior to the fatal shooting?

(q) Was it feasible to use other means to disable the deceased as he walked from his house? Were such means available to or sought by the unit? Had they any training in the use thereof?

(r) What was the specific role of the member of the unit who was designated to negotiate with Mr. Carthy? Who appointed him to that role, where and when? What function did he actually perform as negotiator? What did he say to Mr. Carthy and what was his response? What training had the negotiator received in the performance of his function? Who instructed him; where and when?

Fourth Module: The cause of John Carthy’s death and injuries sustained by him at Abbeylara

This entails an examination of the State Pathologist’s report and relevant documentation from the Coroner’s Inquest into the death of Mr. Carthy.

The possibility of an effective alternative approach or approaches which might have been adopted by the gardaı´ before or after Mr. Carthy emerged from his house prior to being fatally injured will be examined also as part of this module.

Fifth Module: An examination of how the police in other comparable jurisdictions, (e.g. Scotland, Canada, New Zealand and Australia) deal with similar situations where a dangerous armed gunman is believed to be activated by mental illness, psychiatric disorder or other such disability

Oral evidence will be lead on this topic. In addition, official reports and recommendations made in other jurisdictions will be considered by the Tribunal, copies having being furnished to interested parties. Submissions and other evidence will be entertained in relation thereto.

Sixth Module: Review of the statute law in Ireland regarding gun licences; the right of citizens to possess and use firearms and a review of relevant police training

This module entails a review of the relevant statute law in Ireland and a comparison with that in other comparable jurisdictions. In particular it is pertinent to consider the following matters:

i. Should there be a statutory requirement that applicants for gun licences (including annual renewal thereof) shall furnish to the licensing authority medical certificates in a prescribed form from a medical doctor in active practice who knows the applicant and certifies that in terms of physical and mental health he/she is fit to possess a firearm and to be granted a licence in respect thereof?

ii. Should there be a provision for withdrawal of such licences and the right to possess firearms in circumstances where the issuing authority has reasonable grounds for believing that a licencee is temporarily or permanently unfit to hold a licence and to possess a firearm by reason of mental or psychiatric disorder or other such disability?

If a medical or legal advisor has good reason to believe that such a situation may exist regarding a particular patient or client, should the advisor have a statutory obligation to inform the police or other appropriate authority of his/her belief and/or opinion?

iv. Should the statute law provide that the immediate adult family of such a licenced gun-holder has an obligation regarding the removal of a firearm from a licencee so disabled, where such family member has reasonable grounds for believing that the licencee is unfit to possess a firearm and that continued possession may constitute a danger to the licencee or others?

v. If statute law is amended to provide that a gun licence and right to possess a firearm may be revoked by the issuing authority in such circumstances, should the licencee have a statutory right of appeal? Are there comparable statutory provisions in other relevant jurisdictions?

vi. It is also proposed to examine the statute law, together with official reports and recommendations published in other comparable jurisdictions which are pertinent to matters raised in this Tribunal and to the possible amendment of our law. Copies of all such official documentation will be furnished to relevant parties. As such official reports and recommendations probably speak for themselves, it is not presently intended to call the authors thereof as witnesses, but contra evidence may be introduced by any interested party.

vii. Consideration by the Tribunal of existing statute law and possible amendment thereof in the light of events at Abbeylara includes an assessment of whether medical practitioners, or other professional persons such as solicitors, should have a statutory obligation to report to the licensing authority if they have reasonable grounds for believing that a patient or client is or has become unfit to hold a gun licence and to possess a firearm by reason of mental illness or similar disability (including the effects of drug addiction). This question requires the introduction in evidence of professional opinion including those of

appropriate professional organisations, medical and legal. Likewise, possible amendment of the existing statute law regarding the licensing of firearms in possession of members of the public which are of interest to individual gun holders, gun clubs and other relevant sporting organisations. All such bodies, individual professional persons and also holders of gun licences are entitled to be heard on such matters and the Tribunal will accommodate interested parties when the foregoing questions are introduced in evidence in due course.

viii. Regarding the training of the Garda Sı´ocha´na in dealing with dangerous situations involving a mentally disturbed person armed with a loaded firearm such as that which pertained at Abbeylara; the Tribunal will examine all evidence offered on behalf of the Garda Sı´ocha´na in that regard, together with the opinions of experts to be introduced by the Tribunal on the nature and extent of training, which it is submitted by such experts, police officers require in dealing with situations such as that presented by John Carthy at Abbeylara. The Tribunal’s experts will include police advisors; serving police officers; psychiatrists and psychologists. In good time before such experts are called to give evidence, statements and reports furnished by them will be served on relevant parties who shall be free to examine the witnesses and propose other experts in response if they so wish.

The Tribunal’s Report

Having considered all of the evidence, including relevant documentation and expert advice, the Tribunal will publish a report the first part of which will deal with the matters raised in each of the first four modules referred to herein and the Tribunal’s assessment of the facts and of the performance of those who participated in events at Abbeylara up to the fatal shooting of John Carthy on 20^th April, 2000. The second part of the report will review and may contain recommendations on two matters which arise out of the events surrounding the death of Mr. Carthy and matters pertaining to the fifth and sixth modules:

(a) Changes in statute law relating to gun licences and possession of firearms by members of the public, including the possible introduction of an obligation on applicants for gun licences (including renewals thereof) to furnish written medical reports in a prescribed form completed by a medical practitioner in active practice certifying the mental fitness of the applicant to obtain a gun licence and to possess a firearm, and possible requirements directed to medical practitioners and others who have reasonable grounds for believing that a gun licencee has a mental illness, psychiatric disturbance or other disability which renders him/her unfit to hold a gun licence and to possess a firearm having regard to the risk of injury to the licensee and others.

(b) Possible recommendations regarding the training and direction of garda officers, including the Emergency Response Unit, in dealing with dangerous situations such as that which was presented by John Carthy at Abbeylara, arising out of mental illness, psychiatric disturbance or other similar disablement.

Procedures which the Tribunal proposes to adopt in the performance of its work

1. Hamilton C.J. in his judgement in Haughey v Moriarty [1999] 3 I.R. 1 defined the ‘‘proceedings of the Tribunal’’ as involving the following stages:

i. A preliminary investigation of the evidence available.

ii. The determination by the Tribunal of what it considers to be the evidence relevant to the matters into which it is obliged to inquire.

iii. The service of such evidence on persons likely to be affected thereby.

iv. The public hearing of witnesses in regard to such evidence and the cross-examination of such witnesses by or on behalf of the persons affected thereby.

v. The preparation of a report and the making of recommendations based on the facts established at such public hearing.

2. It is pertinent to make clear that a statutory Tribunal, though having many of the powers of the High Court, is not a court of law. It is a Tribunal of Inquiry, the purpose of which in the instant case is to examine and, where possible in the light of the evidence, make findings on the facts and circumstances surrounding the fatal shooting of John Carthy at Abbeylara, Co. Longford, on 20^th April, 2000, and, if thought appropriate, to make recommendations based on the established facts for:

i. Amendment of the statute law regarding the licensing and possession of firearms by adult members of the public, and

ii. the devising of appropriate police procedures and the establishment and regulation of professional and other obligations in circumstances comparable to those relating to John Carthy, i.e., where a potentially dangerous person armed with a loaded firearm is, or is reasonably suspected of being, motivated by mental illness, psychiatric disorder or other similar disablement to the detriment of his own safety and/or of others.

3. The Tribunal’s Inquiry is not a trial of alleged wrongdoing by any particular person or group of persons. It is an exercise designed to establish, if possible, what circumstances brought about or contributed by act or omission to the death of John Carthy on 20^th April, 2000; why that tragedy happened and what might be learned from it.

4. All proceedings before the Tribunal shall be conducted in accordance with the requirements of constitutional and natural justice.

5. Prior to addressing each of the foregoing modules of evidence the Tribunal through its solicitor will contact all persons and bodies known to the Tribunal who it appears may have an interest in the particular module about to be examined and any subsequent module, and all such persons and bodies shall be furnished with copies of statements of relevant witnesses and related

documentation in the possession of the Tribunal. In appropriate circumstances, at the discretion of the Tribunal, copies of all evidential statements and documents in its possession will be furnished.

6. The operation of the Tribunal is inquisitorial in nature rather than adversarial. Accordingly, all evidence will be lead by counsel for the Tribunal. Interested parties or their legal representatives may at the discretion of the Tribunal question witnesses who give evidence. Where a party wishes to have a witness called on his/her behalf, a statement of proposed evidence and a written submission explaining the perceived relevance of the witness shall be furnished to the Tribunal’s solicitor. Where possible this should be done in good time before commencement of the relevant module hearing. If it appears to the Tribunal that the proposed evidence is or may be relevant, arrangements will be made for the witness to be examined by counsel for the Tribunal at a public hearing which the Tribunal deems to be appropriate. Other parties may question the witness if the Tribunal is satisfied that they have a legitimate interest in doing so. The party who proposes the witness may also question him/her immediately after examination in chief or when all interested parties have questioned the witness. Counsel for the Tribunal will have the right to re-examine the witness.

7. Relevant documents may be submitted to the Tribunal by any party. Copies of those accepted for consideration will be furnished to other interested parties.

8. In general, hearings of the Tribunal shall be conducted in accordance with the rules of evidence applicable to civil actions in the High Court. However, the Tribunal reserves to itself the right to excuse strict compliance with such rules where it appears that in the interest of justice it is right to do so. The Supreme Court has approved of that approach in Goodman International and another v Mr. Justice Hamilton and another [1992] 2 I.R. 542. See also the judgement of Diplock LJ. in R v Deputy Industrial Injuries Commissioner, ex parte Moore [1965]1A E.R. 81 at p. 94.

9. The procedures of the Tribunal shall be in accordance with the provisions set out herein and its own rules, copies of which shall be made available to all interested parties in due course on the Tribunal website.

10. It is the earnest desire of the Tribunal that all persons and bodies who have an interest in its investigation will fully cooperate in the provision of information and documentation to enable its work to be brought to an expeditious and successful conclusion economically and at an early date as enjoined by the Houses of the Oireachtas in their respective resolutions already referred to herein.

11. Discovery of documents

The Tribunal hopes that all parties will facilitate its work by making prompt voluntary discovery of documents and that it will not be necessary to exercise its powers to make orders for Discovery. In making any order for Discovery of

documents the Tribunal will give the notice indicated by the Supreme Court in Haughey v Moriarty supra.

The formal opening of the Tribunal Inquiry

In the interest of the Carthy family and other friends and neighbours of the late John Carthy, it has been arranged that the formal opening of the Inquiry by counsel for the Tribunal will take place at the County Council Chambers in Longford on 12th February next at 11:00 a.m. The hearing will continue on subsequent days if necessary. The Tribunal much appreciates the kindness of Longford County Council in making available its Council Chambers for that purpose. The courthouse in Longford is not available as it is closed pending major reconstruction and renovation. It is not possible to conduct the entire Inquiry in Longford as there is not sufficient accommodation continuously available there.

The commencement of oral hearings

The Tribunal hopes to commence oral hearings relating to the first and second modules before the end of February next, but that depends on the requisite premises in the Jameson Building being made available to the Tribunal as promised.

Applications seeking authorisation for representation before the Tribunal This is the final matter to be addressed at this sitting.

1. The Tribunal has power at its discretion to grant legal representation to individuals and bodies who appear to be substantially connected or associated with or affected by the death of John Carthy on 20^th April, 2000 at Abbeylara, Co. Longford. Such individuals or groups include the family of the late Mr. Carthy; the Emergency Response Unit of the Garda Sı´ocha´na and other garda officers who were present at the scene during events at and about the Carthy home on 1 9th and 20^th April, 2000 or who were in command of officers there at that time; medical doctors who had some involvement in events at Abbeylara and/or who had treated Mr. Carthy for psychiatric disturbance prior to his death.

2. There may be other persons whose reputations or interest could be affected by the circumstances surrounding the death of John Carthy. They also may apply for representation having specified the reason for their application.

3. In course of its deliberations evidence or allegations may emerge of which the Tribunal is not presently aware. If that should occur an application for representation may be made to the Tribunal by or on behalf of any affected party. This should be supported by a statement in writing specifying the grounds for the application and, where appropriate, indicating the involvement of the applicant in any aspect of the investigation.

4. In certain cases it may be appropriate for individuals or bodies to apply for general representation at the Tribunal i.e. where their interest includes all or most modules of investigation. Other applicants may have an interest in one or two

modules only, e.g., 6 relating to possible amendment of existing gun law, including the possible creation of statutory obligations affecting relevant medical, legal and sporting organisations. Such bodies may be granted legal representation limited to possible changes in the law affecting those whom they represent. In due course when it is indicated on behalf of the Tribunal the possible changes in existing law which are in contemplation, interested professional or sporting bodies are requested to furnish to the solicitor for the Tribunal statements setting out their response to amendments of the law as contemplated and also statements of evidence from any witness they may wish to introduce in that regard.

5. When the Tribunal refuses an application for representation that does not preclude the applicant from applying again at a later date if there are changed circumstances which justify a further application. In that event a statement should be furnished to the Tribunal’s solicitor specifying the grounds for the renewed application.

6. The granting of representation to any party does not necessarily imply that an order for costs will be made at the conclusion of the Inquiry in favour of the grantee. A party who obstructs or fails to cooperate with the Tribunal may be penalised in costs and in the end may be found liable for costs incurred by the Tribunal arising out of such obstruction or failure in cooperation.

7. Without prejudice to the exercise of my discretion, it is proper to indicate in general terms that where any person or body has realistically and reasonably incurred legal costs and/or expenses in giving the Tribunal full and prompt assistance in its work, I would be favourably disposed to provide for such costs and expenses.

8. Applications for representation at the Tribunal made at this sitting will be ruled upon in this court at noon on next Friday, 10^th January, 2003.

9. In making applications for representation at the Tribunal Inquiry the following information should be furnished:

1. The name of counsel (or of the applicant if a personal application is made).

2. The name of the instructing solicitor (if any).

3. The name and address of the person or body on whose behalf application is made.

4. Whether the applicant seeks full or limited representation.

5. The grounds on which representation is sought. The Tribunal may require such grounds to be furnished in writing.

The registrar will call the parties who have written to the Tribunal indicating an intention to apply for representation. Others then may make similar applications.