Brendan Hoban: Harris’s zero-tolerance approach is justified         

Western People, 26.3.2024

In today’s papers (as I write) there’s a report on an investigation by the Garda Anti-Corruption Unit  into the activities of a Garda unit based in the Dublin area. Four officers have been arrested and are currently suspended from duties. Yesterday (as I write) one officer appeared in the Dublin District Court to face seven charges, among them falsely imprisoning a woman, perverting the course of justice by amending data on the Garda Pulse System and burglary.

In certain professions a certain trust is necessarily expected in the exercise of duty that can sometimes be open to an abuse of position that often goes unnoticed or is inadequately supervised. As a result by virtue of the nature of their work certain professional groups are susceptible to accusations, real or imaginary, of abusing their positions of trust. I have in mind positions where individuals have, out of necessity, exceptional control over others in their care and are therefore liable to allegations of bullying and sometimes much worse. 

The Garda on the beat, the teacher in a classroom, the priest in a parish, the nurse in a hospital, the care-giver in a nursing home are examples of such professions where power and control over vulnerable children and adults can be, as we know in some instances, exercised not wisely and not well. And, as we know too, when standards of professional care fall below acceptable levels the fallout can arrive in a court of law for resolution and redress. 

In this context, few would question the apparent policy of the present Garda Commissioner, Drew Harris, for a zero tolerance approach to policing accusations of abuse, bullying and much worse on his watch. It may serve to help explain some of his current unpopularity among the force.

Popularity, of course, is not the most admirable quality in those charged with responsibility for supervising those with individual and exceptional control over vulnerable others. In fact, it can be argued that, human nature being what it is, seeking popularity can often be the result of lightweight and irresponsible supervision of those whose positions give them huge levels of personal authority and control over those at risk. 

As we know, the problem of supervising those abusing their position of trust is much wider than the examples quoted above. Recently I received a letter from an old man who related what seems to be from his own account an example of gross and unacceptable levels of bullying.

For some years I was part of a voluntary group fund-raising to build a community facility. My part in the project wasn’t huge and I was quite chuffed to tell the truth that, as it began to take shape, I was invited as part of the group to view how the project was developing. When I arrived there was no one around. As I walked on to the site, I was confronted by an official who shouted at me and ordered me off the site. I was happy to do so and complied immediately with his request. As he continued to rage, I suggested quietly to him that I wasn’t questioning his authority, and that I regarded his attitude as unacceptable. I pointed out that I was in my late 70s and was not in the best of health, and that I felt bullied, threatened, diminished and humiliated by him. He proceeded then to talk down to me as if I was a child and to patronise me. I was happy that I defended myself and protested against his efforts to diminish me but afterwards I felt quite shaken and wasn’t myself for a few days. I considered reporting him but, in view of the huge toll the experience had taken on me I wasn’t up to doing that.

I need to say that I’ve disguised the circumstances described above as I cannot vouch for its accuracy. But it has, I have to say, the ring of truth to it as I myself have witnessed and personally experienced similar versions of such unprofessional behaviour – and the toll it takes. 

Two conclusions seem necessary.

One, when people are appointed to positions of supervision and trust in dealing with the public, they need to be chosen carefully. To take the examples quoted above – garda, teacher, priest, nurse, care-giver – the defining priority in assessing suitability shouldn’t be intelligence or competence or appearance or knowing someone in authority but character and above all respect.

Two, everyone in a responsible position but especially those dealing with the public – in our variety of moods and idiosyncrasies – needs to be carefully monitored, especially those dealing with the vulnerable in their care.

The difficult truth is that there are guards, teachers, priests, nurses, care-givers (and many other examples of ‘professionals’ can be supplied from memory) who should never have survived an effective vetting process and who, for their own mental health and the safety of others, should never be allowed to spend a lifetime insulting, abusing and bullying those innocents who had the misfortune to encounter them in the course of their lives.

Those responsible for taking difficult but necessary decisions, when basic levels of respect and responsibility are no longer seen as requirements among those in their employ, should follow the example of Commissioner Drew Harris.

It doesn’t mean, of course, that mistakes won’t be made.

A recent case of a Garda who gave the temporary loan of an unclaimed bicycle to an old man who, during Covid was told by his doctor to take exercise (and who couldn’t access a bicycle shop) was the victim of inordinate attention by the Garda authorities, some of whom now stand accused of excessively punishing (to a bizarre extent) a selfless gesture of kindness. In effect, what presents at first sight as an example of a high standard in community policing. The injustice will no doubt be undone, in so far as this is possible, and it needs to be done swiftly.