SOCIAL WARFARE (P35)
RECORD NO. 39
Described by FOI Commissioner as 'Memo (dated 01/12/00) signed by J Glennon'. Partial Release withhold pers. info of Officer. Exempt under Section 28(1).
Described by SW as 'Record No. 38' 'Investigators Memo dated 1/12/00' Release Refused Sections 21(1)(a), 23, 26 & 28(1) applies.
For more than 4 years the Department successfully withheld this document using demonstrably extraneous FOI sections. The release of this document, with only Sean Kelly's identity withheld, exposes the sordid and wholly unacceptable kangaroo court conducted by John Glennon acting on the instructions of the then Minister for Social Welfare, Dermot Ahern.
Record No. 39 is John Glennon's account of an 'interview' conducted by him of Mr. Bill McMahon, Senior Placement Officer, Finglas Fas Office. X had originally gone to FAS with her allegation of assault because Sean Kelly had informed her that he was a SW inspector acting on behalf of FAS. This 'interview' by SW Regional Manager, John Glennon of an independent third party (Bill McMahon) regarding X's allegation of assault against Sean Kelly, was arranged in advance by Mr. Glennon and Mr. Tony Hannigan FAS Regional Manager on the 2nd of November 2000 (Refer to Document No. 36, Memo No. 1 dated 3/11/00). The only organisation with the authority to investigate allegations of assault is An Garda Siochana. John Glennon is not a member of An Garda Siochana.
In this document Mr. Glennon states -
- Mr. McMahon recalled the case clearly.
- He had taken his own notes at the time.
- Bill McMahon told them that the allegation was for Social Welfare not Fas.
- Bill McMahon felt that X had "Some sort of problem".
- She seems to be "Very highly strung or something".
These incredibly derogatory statements are attributed to Bill McMahon by John Glennon. There is no evidence that Bill McMahon ever uttered these words. John Glennon is clearly casting aspersions on X's mental health for making a complaint of assault against Sean Kelly. X had no history of mental illness.
RECORD NO. 40
Described by FOI Commissioner as 'Email (dated 04/12/00) from J Glennon + copy record 16 and record 17'. Partial Release withhold pers. info of Officer. Exempt under Section 28(1) .
Described by SW as 'Record No. 39' 'Email to a person against whom complaint made' Release Refused Sections 21(1)(a), 21(1)(b), 23, 26 & 28(1) applies.
For more than 4 years the Department successfully withheld this document using FOI sections which were dismissed by the FOI Commissioner. This email was sent to Sean Kelly by John Glennon. It is marked 'confidential' and states-
Please see copy my previous em to you attached dated the 21 July 2000. I very much regret the long delay in getting back to you about. But as you can imagine it has been a difficult and delicate matter to investigate. I'm anxious to bring it to a conclusion as soon as possible but before I can do this I need to interview you again so that we can put to you the further details and allegations that (X) has made.
Dave Redmond and myself are keeping the 19th and 20th December free in our diaries in the hope that one of there dates may also suit you. It can be morning or afternoon, whichever you prefer. And you are of course free to be accompanied by you solicitor if this is your wish.
As I'll now be away on business until Monday 18th December can you confirm the exact arrangements with Dave in my absence.
I'll be obliged.
John Glennon was fully aware at the time of his writing of this email (Record No. 40) that Sean Kelly had falsified and forged numerous documents and added them to X's SW file, refer to Record No. 1, Record No. 2 & Record No. 26. Indeed, John had manufactured a document himself and added it to X's file in a deliberate attempt to besmirch her character and had been complicit in the creation of other falsified documents added to X's files.
This was a kangaroo court with Glennon acting as Judge, Jury and executioner of the cover-up. The Department's CONTINUING failure to report a complaint of assault against one of its staff to An Garda Siochana was the subject of written Dail questions and has never been addressed in the replies from the SW Minister.
Described by FOI Commissioner as 'Email (dated 11/12/00) from Dave Redmond. Partial Release withhold pers. info of Officer. Exempt under Section 28(1) .
Described by SW as 'Record No. 40' 'Email dated 11/12/00 to a person against whom complaint made' Release Refused Sections 21(1)(a) 23 & 28(1) applies.
This is an email sent from Dave Redmond to Sean Kelly confirming the booking of a room in Oisin House for 20/12/00.
Described by FOI Commissioner as 'Email (dated 18/12/00) from J Glennon. Partial Release withhold pers. info of Officer. Exempt under Section 28(1) .
Described by SW as 'Record No. 41' 'Email dated 18/12/00 from Investigator to a person against whom complaint made' Release Refused Sections 21(1)(a) 23 & 28(1) applies.
Single line email from John Gleenon to Sean Kelly and Dave Redmond confirming that he will be in attendance at the meeting in Oisin House.
Described by FOI Commissioner as 'Note (undated) - unsigned'. Partial Release withhold pers. info of Officer. Exempt under Section 28(1) .
Described by SW as 'Record No. 42' 'Investigators Aide Memoire' Release Refused Sections 21(1)(a), 21(1)(b), 23 & 28(1) applies.
Mr. Glennon stated that if these allegations being made against Sean Kelly were proven to be true, it would meant the he was guilty of either, at best professional misconduct or at worst sexual misconduct.
Described by FOI Commissioner as 'Interview on 20/12/00 report (dated 15/1/01) signed by J Glennon and D Redmond). Partial Release withhold pers. info of Officer. Exempt under Section 28(1) .
Described by SW as 'Record No. 43' 'Report dated 15/1/01 on interview with a person against whom complaint made' Release Refused Sections 21(1)(a), 21(1)(b), 23, 36 & 28(1) applies.
Substantial sections of this document are redacted. It is clear that this was not an 'interview'. This document states-
- We informed Sean Kelly that we interviewed (X) on 7th September 2000.
- As a result of this interview there were further embellishments to her original allegations.
- The Regional Manager said that it was a shocking allegation and that he could understand Sean Kelly's feelings.
- We advised Sean Kelly that (X) had made us aware that she had made a complaint to the Gardai but we did not know the status of their investigation.
- It (Garda Investigation) had no bearing on our investigation and we repeated that it was our brief to investigate the allegations on behalf of the Minister.
- We have tried to check and verify all aspects of the case while at the same time being conscious not to do or say anything that could be construed as giving any credibility to what are unproved allegations.
- We have also done everything in our power to keep the investigation as discrete and as confidential as possible.
- The Regional Manager stated that the onus of proof was on (X) and in his opinion to date no compelling evidence has been presented that would justify interfering in any way with Sean Kelly's current position within the Department.
- We would be taking on board Sean Kelly's views and his reputation, the views of (X) and her dealings with the Department which unfortunately were unhappy ones.
- The salient facts will be examined and this may amount to vindication for Sean Kelly in so far as we can prove vindication.
- Expressing sympathy, Mr. Glennon said he could understand the difficulty that these allegations were causing Sean Kelly.
- He (John Glennon) said the fact that the Department had taken no action to date should indicate something.
- While being the possible subject of allegations may to some extent be an occupational hazard for an (Redacted) this cannot excuse the allegations that have been made in this case, if it is proven that these allegations are groundless.
- Mr. Glennon said that as things stand nothing had been proven as as far as he is concerned Sean Kelly's reputation remains intact.
- The next stage of the process would be to advise (X) of the outcome of this interview and then submit the report to the Personnel Office.
- Mr. Kelly had already been informed of Xs interview and was sent a copy of a report containing extensive details on 18th December 2000 by John Glennon.
- For Mr. Glennon to refer to the details provided by X in the only interview he conducted with X as 'further embellishments' is indicative of the conclusion of the Department's own Review Team which states - 'It was not appropriate that the Regional Manager should have foregone due process by forming a personal view on the like outcome. The absence of due process is, in the view of the Review Team, a defect in the investigation that took place and one that requires attention'.
- This is another clear example of Mr. Glennon's cover-up and clear bias in his kangaroo court.
- Sean Kelly was fully aware that X had made a complaint and statement to An Garda Siochana which was 'disappeared' by AGS and eventually let to a decision by the Data Protection Commissioner that AGS had breached Data Protection in repeated denials that a complaint and statement actually existed.
- Mr. Glennon stated that his 'brief' was to investigate an allegation of assault on behalf of the Minister for Social Welfare and that a possible Garda investigation had no bearing on his investigation. That Mr. Glennon carried out a so called 'investigation' contradicts the Department's own guidelines on assault allegations which state 'If an Inspector is assaulted in the course of his official duties he should report the incident at the earliest opportunity to the local Gardai'.
- All allegations are by definition 'unproven'. Mr. Glennon could not fairly and impartially investigate allegations of assault and at the same time 'not do or say anything that could be construed as giving any credibility' to Xs allegations. Allegations remained unproven only because of Mr. Glennons refusal to investigate these allegations.
- Mr. Glennon did not keep X's identity 'discrete'. X was discussed by John Glennon with totally unrelated SW employees and FAS employees.
- Mr. Glennon's statement that 'the onus of proof was on X' is incorrect. The proof required to support X's allegations was at all times available to Mr. Glennon and was contained in Departmental files to which X had no access and was repeatedly refused access. When X did actually manage to obtain documents and send them for forensic analysis, two Forensic Reports confirmed that multiple documents had been forged and falsified by Sean Kelly and others in a far reaching cover-up.
- Mr. Glennon's statement that he would 'not do or say anything that could be construed as giving any credibility' to X's allegations did not in any way take 'on board' Xs views or reputation, however, it did guarantee Sean Kelly that his unapproved, unrecorded 'home visit' would not be investigated.
- The salient facts have never been examined. In order to vindicate Sean Kelly, Mr. Glennon recorded his own third party allegations against X, added unidentified documents containing information to malign X and recorded false and derogatory statements regarding Xs mental health.
- Mr. Glennon expressed sympathy for Sean Kelly being fully aware that he and Mr. Kelly were engaged in a cover-up and kangaroo court.
- That the Department took no action other than to cover-up for Sean Kelly has potentially left many women at risk.
- Mr. Glennon believes that allegations of assault are an 'Occupational Hazard', this is an astonishing statement from a Regional Manager of the Department.
- One aspect of the allegations not investigated by Mr. Glennon was subsequently proven true and Sean Kelly was found by the Department to have breached it's own guidelines. Of course, no action was taken on foot of this fact.
- X has never received a 'Final Report' from John Glennon. She was instead informed by John Glennon that Sean Kelly was entitled to take legal action against her for making a complaint in the first instance.
Part 36 coming soon