22: A public interest investigation following a security breach at Áras an Uachtaráin

Background

GSOC commenced a public interest investigation after it was widely reported in the media that there had been a security breach at Áras an Uachtaráin, the official residence of the President.

The facts of the incident, established early in the investigation, were that on 14 September 2018 at 17:23 a car was driven through an open gate into the grounds of Áras an Uachtaráin without challenge. The driver drove to the front of the Áras, stopped the car and walked into the Áras building through the front door which was open.

The person tried to open a number of doors in the building before happening upon the President’s study. The President opened the door to the study and was confronted by the intruder. The person spoke to the President in an aggressive manner about issues that concerned the intruder. The person was in the Áras for just over three minutes before the President went to call for assistance and the person left.

The person went back to the car, drove back to the Phoenix Gate and left through the gate, again without being challenged.

The duties of members of the Garda Síochána assigned to Áras an Uachtaráin are set out in a document known as the Protection Order—Áras an Uachtaráin, which provides for, among other things, a number of ‘static’ posts.

Among the static posts is one at the Phoenix Gate (the gate through which the intruder gained access on14 September). Most of the Garda members on duty at the Áras are permanently assigned there—but gardaí from elsewhere in the division, or at times outside the division, are regularly called upon when it is not possible to fill the posts from the resources allocated to the Áras.

The Protection Order states that the Garda member on duty will ascertain from all persons seeking admittance their identity and the nature of their business. The Order also states that the Phoenix Gate will remain closed at all times except for the permitting of authorised vehicles and visitors to enter Áras an Uachtaráin.

Action Taken

The GSOC investigation established that the Phoenix Gate was left open for a period by the garda (Garda A) who was on duty at the gate up until 5pm. When Garda A took up duty earlier that day, electricians were working on lighting just outside the gate. They needed frequent access to the fuse box in the lodge beside the gate where the garda on duty is based, so they were in and out through the gate regularly during Garda A’s tour of duty.

As they were in and out through the gate for the duration of the garda’s shift, and more frequently as the afternoon went on, Garda A asked if it would be better to leave the gate open. There were a lot of staff from the Áras leaving at that time, so Garda A believed it made sense to leave it open. The gate is controlled using a code on a key pad beside the gate. A code must be entered by the member on duty at the gate both to open and close the gate.

While the gate remained open, Garda A remained standing at the gate as per instructions.

As the gate was left open by Garda A for access by authorised work persons, and as Garda A stood at the gate during this time, Garda A did not act in contravention of the Protection Order.

Outcome

GSOC recommended that no disciplinary proceedings be instituted under the Garda Síochána Disciplinary Regulations (2007)  against Garda A.

GSOC also recommended that no disciplinary proceedings be instituted against a Garda sergeant who had completed a tour of duty before the breach of security occurred and who could not be held accountable for supervision while not on duty.

GSOC did however recommend that disciplinary proceedings be considered against Garda B, who took up duty at the Phoenix Gate at 5pm on the date in question, for neglect of duty. Garda B was on duty at the Phoenix Gate when the person who confronted the President in his office was allowed to drive through the open gate unchallenged and allowed drive back out again, unchallenged, a few minutes later.

GSOC did however recommend that disciplinary proceedings be considered against Garda B, who took up duty at the Phoenix Gate at 5pm on the date in question, for neglect of duty. Garda B was on duty at the Phoenix Gate when the person who confronted the President in his office was allowed to drive through the open gate unchallenged and allowed drive back out again, unchallenged, a few minutes later.

Garda B said in a statement that he wasn’t really comfortable leaving the gate open and asked the workers if they  would need it open much longer. They told him they needed another 15 minutes. He remained standing at the gate and while he was speaking to someone, he noticed that internal doors in the lodge were banging from the breeze. He decided to go and close the doors, an action which took a few seconds. He heard a car on the gravel as he was in the lodge and began to make his way back to the gate. He saw a small car driving in the gate with the driver waving at him in the manner that Áras staff use when hey are identifying themselves at the gate.

Garda B said the car was similar to a car used by one of the staff at the Áras. Garda B said he had a split second to decide if he needed to be concerned about the car and driver, but taking everything he had seen into account, in that split second, he assumed the driver was a staff member.

Less than ten minutes later, the same car drove back down the avenue and the driver had a hand raised as if in greeting. The gate was still open as the workers were still there. Garda B acknowledged the driver who then drove out the gate. Just as the car was going out the gate, the phone in the lodge rang; it was one of the President’s aides asking if a blue car had just left. The aide said that a person had just come into the Áras and had confronted the President and wanted to know who had let the person in. Garda B said in his statement to GSOC that he had not seen the Protection Order for the Áras, and his knowledge of what is required came from informal briefings for general duty and formal briefings for special events, such as when visitors are expected. He was not aware if a risk assessment was conducted for the gate being left open.

The GSOC report of its investigation (outlined above) was sent to the Garda Commissioner recommending that consideration be given to instituting disciplinary proceedings against Garda B. GSOC has no role in these proceedings.

GSOC was subsequently informed by the Garda Síochána that a senior garda who was appointed to decide, on the basis of the statement of facts decided by the GSOC investigation, if Garda B was in breach of discipline had decided that Garda B was in breach of discipline. Garda B was an experienced garda, and had previously worked shifts at Áras an Uachtaráin. While Garda B reported that he had not previously received a copy of the Protection Order for Áras an Uachtaráin or a specific risk assessment in respect of works being conducted at the Áras on the date in question, the senior garda was satisfied that Garda B would have had the knowledge and understanding that undertaking any duty at the Áras required a high level of duty to protect the President and the Áras. A core element of this duty is to check all persons entering Áras an Uachtaráin.

The senior garda found that Garda B had neglected his duty in failing to ascertain the nature and business of the member of the public who drove through the gate in contravention of the Protection Order, Áras an Uachtaráin. His failure to conduct a diligent enquiry into the vehicle and its occupant and failure to alert the main house at Áras an Uachtaráin of the vehicle, compromised the safety of the President and Áras an Uachtaráin. The garda was subject to a monetary sanction.