Kevin & Jackie Buckley
V
An Garda Siochana
(Represented by Michael D. Murray Solicitors)
Summary of the Complainant's case
Kevin and Jackie Buckley say they have been suffering at the hands people in their locality who indulge in anti-social behaviour. They have reported the various incidents and attacks to the Gardai and are concerned that not all incidents have been pursued to prosecution and that they are receiving insufficient feedback from the Gardai. They allege that such feedback is listed in the Garda Customer Charter. Apart from an injury to Mrs. Buckley's eye the rest of the attacks were verbal. On one occasion, in February 2006, she called to report a threatening phonecall but received an inadequate response. Later in the evening she was called names by a group of teenagers. The complainants later spoke to the Gardai about these attacks and the lack of support being received around 9pm in the evening. They protested by sitting in the middle of a road and were arrested. Mrs. Buckley felt that undue force had been used. They allege that the Gardai have treated them less favourably than others because of a disability and they also allege victimisation under the Act. They notified the Gardai of their allegations on a form dated 6th April 2006 and lodged a complaint with the Tribunal on a form dated 7th April 2006. The Buckleys were at pains to explain that not all Gardai were causing difficulties and that some were very helpful. Evidence was submitted from medical personnel indicating the disabilities that the Buckley's have and this was further described at the hearing.
Summary of the Respondent's Case
The respondent argued that the issues being complained about are control functions and not services provided to the public. As such, they are outside the scope of the Act. It was also argued that the Gardai were not aware of the complainants' disabilities until they were sent the notification alleging less favourable treatment because of a disability. When Mrs. Buckley called to report the threatening phone call the Garda who took the call was already dealing with a call from a person threatening to commit suicide and he was unable to give her immediate attention. Later that Garda went with another to Mrs. Buckley. She told them she had been verbally abused. They asked if that was all or had there been anything else. She got very upset and sat in the middle of the road. Her husband asked her to get up and when he had no success he joined her. The Garda asked them to get up. He then directed them to get up. After giving them several opportunities to follow the directions he told them he would be forced to arrest them if they did not get up. As Mrs. Buckley resisted the Gardai were forced to pull her off the road by her arms but then she stopped resisting and it was thought there was no need to handcuff her.
Various members of the Gardai met with the Buckleys at different times and the respondent feels that due concern was shown. It is generally accepted that there are counter-complaints from the alleged attackers about the complainants. When asked when the Gardai first became aware of the complainants' disabilities the response was initially unclear but an indication was given that Ms. Buckley's medical records were requested around 20th September 2005.
Conclusions of the Equality Officer
I am satisfied that the Buckleys are disabled in terms of the Act and I am also satisfied that there has been considerable interaction between the Buckleys and the Gardai involving both service provision in terms of the Act and control functions which are generally considered to be outside the scope of the Acts. This decision will only address those interactions relating to the provision of service in terms of the Acts. What must be established is whether or not the Buckley's were treated less favourably during those interactions than someone without a disability, or with a different disability, would have been treated.
I was faced with considerable reticence on the part of the Gardai to respond to certain questions and requests for information. Both before the hearing and at the hearing I was told information was privileged. However at the hearing when directed to provide the information in accordance with the powers delegated to me the information was provided. Subsequent to the hearing the respondents were asked to confirm if they had received a letter from the Buckleys' doctor dated 23rd September 2005. They indicated that they had not but that the contents of a conversation between a Garda and the Doctor on that date was confidential as it related to a complaint made by Ms. Buckley on a different matter. Since I am not interested in the substantive complaints made by the Buckleys on different matters but only in the treatment they received from the Gardai, in respect of which they complained to the Director, I saw no point in pursuing the matter. The Gardai argued at the hearing that they only became aware of the illnesses when they received the notification relating to these complaints. However, the complainants' doctor stated in writing that he contacted them on 23rd September 2005 which is well before the incident in February 2006. I am satisfied that Ms. Buckley's medical records were requested by a Garda on 20th September 2005 and that there was a conversation between the requesting Garda and the Doctor. It is apparent from the evidence submitted that the Doctor made significant efforts over time to ensure that the Buckleys' situation was remedied. On the basis of all of the evidence presented to me I am satisfied that the Gardai were aware of at least Ms. Buckley's medical condition on or around 23rd September 2005.
The Buckleys reported many incidents to the Gardai of what they considered to be attacks made on them by members of certain families. Each time they reported one it seems that they expected the Gardai to inform them as to what they intended to do, e.g. to prosecute the alleged perpetrators, to call to the perpetrators' homes to give them a warning, etc., and they wanted ongoing feedback as to how these things progressed over time. Having reviewed the Customer Charter it seems to me that the feedback mentioned in it relates to feedback from the public to the Gardai in respect of services. While the Charter does mention that Gardai will consult with their customers regularly, it is not clear to me how the Buckleys have such high expectations relating to the level of consultation to which they are entitled. It also appears that some action was taken by the Gardai in that some prosecutions did take place and information was sent to the DPP in respect of some incidents. Subsequent to the lodging of the Buckleys claim to the Tribunal, and in the face of a worsening medical situation for the Buckleys, the Gardai did take part in multiparty talks involving other organisations to attempt to resolve the situation although these were unsuccessful overall.
On one occasion when Mrs. Buckley called to report a threatening phone call she felt she did not get an adequate response. When out later that evening another incident culminated in Mrs. Buckley sitting in the centre of road to protest the lack of support she was receiving from the Gardai. When she consistently refused to move she was ultimately arrested. I am satisfied that on the evening of the arrest the Buckleys had put themselves in danger and were a danger to others by sitting in the middle of the road. I am satisfied that the removal of the complainants from the road at 9:30 in the evening was necessary and that her arrest constituted a control function outside the scope of this Act.
The Buckleys also stated that they were required to make reports of the attacks on them in the public foyer of the Garda Station and that they would have expected this to have taken place in private. However, no dates or specifics were presented in relation to this and therefore I cannot verify when these took place. Had they taken place after the Gardai knew about their disabilites then reasonable accommodation of their disabilities might have been appropriate, that is such treatment as might have reduced their anxiety rather than increase it, such as the taking of reports in private.
It is clear from the evidence that the Buckleys have received varying degrees of customer service from the different Gardai involved. While it is not the case with all of the individual Gardai involved, it seems that to some of the Gardai these contacts had taken on a degree of nuisance value, given the frequency of contacts made by the Buckleys and efforts already made on their behalf. While the handling of their difficulties by the Buckleys may have been affected by their illnesses and while these illnesses may have had an effect on the number of times the Buckley's contacted the Gardai no direct evidence to that effect was presented to me. In addition, while some of the Gardai may not have responded in a manner sympathetic of the Buckley's plight, no evidence has been presented that would suggest that such treatment was because of any disability or illness effecting the Buckleys. In my view this speaks more of poor customer awareness and customer service than it does of discrimination. Finally, no evidence has been presented to show that someone without a disability or with a different disability would have been treated differently. Simply put, no evidence has been produced that would lead one to believe that the reason that the Gardai were unsympathetic at times was because they knew of the complainants' disabilities. In addition, no evidence was produced by the complainants that would indicate victimisation of them in terms of the Act by the Gardai.
On the basis of the evidence presented to me I find that the Buckleys have failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination on the disability ground or victimisation.
Decision DEC-S2008-006
I find that the complainants have failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination on the disability ground and this decision is therefore in favour of the respondent.
Bernadette Treanor
Equality Officer
21st January 2008