GSOC investigation into events leading to Islandeady murder released

GSOC investigation into events leading to Islandeady murder released


Celyn Eadon was mistakenly allowed to leave Castlebar District Court and three weeks later he murdered his mother

Ciara Galvin

A Garda SíochΡna Ombudsman Commission investigation into the failure to remand a young Islandeady man in custody who weeks later murdered his mother, has published recommendations to ensure similar events do not happen again.
Celyn Eadon of Derrycrieve, Islandeady, was convicted of the murder of his mother, Nóirín Kelly (46) at their family home on March 9, 2011. She died from multiple stab wounds.
The report centres on events which took place at Castlebar District Court on February 16, 2011 and led to Eadon walking from the court despite being remanded in custody.
On that date, Eadon was released from custody and left Castlebar District Court with his mother. At the conclusion of the court, a committal warrant remanding Eadon in custody was issued by the court and was handed to An Garda SíochΡna. This warrant was not executed.
The GSOC report indicates that the release of Eadon occurred due to a number of deficiencies  by An Garda SíochΡna. However, the report states that the Garda role and responsibilities ‘cannot be viewed in isolation’.
The report makes several recommendations including a review of policies and procedures by An Garda SíochΡna in relation to performing escort duties to prison.
It also states that the Garda SíochΡna reviews its own practices and liaises with the Court Service to review the procedures surrounding warrants and in particular with reference to this examination, committal remand warrants.
Further recommendations suggest that An Garda SíochΡna should liaise with the Court Service to ensure that all warrants, including committal remand warrants, are entered onto PULSE without delay and that details of bail decisions and conditions should be entered onto PULSE.
An Garda SíochΡna should also review the management of warrants, with a view to drawing up a Standard Operating Procedure supported by dedicated, adequately resourced warrant units.
The report also suggests that the Garda SíochΡna liaise with the Court Service and the Irish Prison Service with a view to establishing a system whereby committal remand warrants are forwarded electronically on the day of issue to the nominated prison or place of detention.
Charges
There were 23 summonses listed against Mr Eadon on February 16, 2011 relating primarily to road traffic offences and also to the handling of stolen property. In addition to the 17 summonses that had been the subject of proceedings on a previous court date at Harristown District Court, there were a further six summonses. These had been adjourned from the sitting on February 2, 2011 of Castlebar District Court.
Before the court commenced on February 16, 2011, Eadon was charged with a new charge of theft. Judge Mary Devins decided that all matters be adjourned to be dealt with at Achill District Court on March 10, 2011. However the length of time which Mr Eadon could be remanded in custody on the new charge was limited by Section 4 of the Criminal Justice (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1997. To solve this matter, Mr Eadon’s solicitor suggested that his client could be released on bail in relation to the new charge. All matters could then be adjourned until the March court. Following this decision, Eadon was remanded in custody on the previous 17 summonses, and he was remanded on bail on the new theft charge.
In relation to the new charge, Eadon was released on his own bail of €50 to appear at Achill District Court on March 10, 2011. Mr Eadon then signed the bail bond in respect of the new charge.
The failure to execute the warrant was discovered by the Courts Service after the sitting of Achill District Court on March 10, 2011. On this occasion, the summonses and charge sheet in respect of Mr Eadon had been further adjourned as Mr Eadon was at the time in Garda custody in relation to the death of his mother.
The report concludes that it is critically important to maintain the confidence of the public and that it is ‘essential’ that there are clear areas of accountability and responsibility.