Man who pleaded guilty to electoral fraud worked for Healy-Rae company, Fine Gael senator claims
Senator Michael Kennelly said: 'We had voter impersonation at a Kenmare polling station at the local and European elections in June 2024 caught on CCTV.'
Raising the issue in the Upper House, he referred to the case in Kenmare District Court earlier this month.
'A Cahersiveen man pleaded guilty but avoided a conviction for election fraud after he used a polling card not in his name that went missing from a vehicle.
READ MORE
'It is even more extraordinary to learn, as every dog and divil in Kerry knows, that the defendant works for the Healy-Rae Plant Hire company.'
Using Seanad privilege, the Listowel Senator said the defendant was 'cited in court as a farmer and a contractor, but his employer, the Healy-Rae firm, was unusually not identified, even though he has worked for it for years'.
Mr Kennelly said he had called for a 'thorough investigation into the facts of the incident', adding that 'we still need clarity as to how this was quietly hushed up'.
He said the issue 'has made a mockery of our democracy'.
Mr Kennelly added: 'There have been no answers as to how this man got the polling card before he drove 40 miles (64km) from his home to vote in another town. 'He did not acquire it himself, the court was told, so who exactly gave it to him?'
Offering further information, he said: 'This guy was not even asked for identification. To say we are running proper registration on voting day is wrong. We do not know how many of these cases exist.'
The Healy-Rae Plant Hire company is owned by the family of Independent TD Danny Healy-Rae. Contacted for comment, Mr Healy-Rae said: 'I have no comment.'
Mr Healy-Rae is brother of Minister of State for Agriculture, Michael Healy-Rae.
Mr Kennelly, a Senator on the Labour panel, also highlighted another case in Kerry in 2019. A decision is still pending from the Director of Public Prosecutions in relation to that case.
He said: 'This case centres on allegations that, ahead of the May 2019 local elections, a Garda officer, in the Killarney electoral area, stamped hundreds of supplementary voter registration forms without the applicants being physically present, which is a legal requirement.
'An Garda Síochána launched a formal investigation led by a superintendent from outside Kerry and a file was prepared. As of April 2024, GSOC forwarded a file to the DPP, with a decision still pending. This is over six years ago. When will we see this case brought to a conclusion?'
He added that every 'fraudulent vote cancels out the voice of a lawful voter'. He pointed out that he won a seat in the 2014 Listowel local elections by two votes.
Mr Kennelly called on Minister of State for Local Government, Christopher O'Sullivan, 'to clean up the whole voting process, to review the cases I have mentioned and to make sure that everything possible is done to eradicate this kind of behaviour'.
Mr O'Sullivan said he could not comment on individual cases but he agreed 'fraudulent behaviour in the voting process strikes at the core of democracy'.
He added that he does not think it happens widely, but stated: 'Where it is blatant and obvious and someone has been caught red-handed, I agree there should be serious consequences'.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Irish Times
27 minutes ago
- Irish Times
Kneecap trial spotlights challenges for Irish speakers in British and Irish courts
When the case of Kneecap 's Liam Óg Ó hAnnaidh was before Westminster Magistrates Court earlier this summer, Ó hAnnaidh's legal team indicated that he might require an Irish-language interpreter for his trial. That trial, if it proceeds to hearing later this year, would be the most high-profile case involving testimony given through Irish in recent history. It is also likely to highlight at least some of the difficulties faced by Irish speakers in courtrooms both in the UK and Ireland. Perhaps the most basic difficulty is securing a right to use Irish at all. Had Ó hAnnaidh been prosecuted in Northern Ireland prior to February, 2024, a 1737 Act of Parliament would have prohibited the use of Irish in court. Even now, following the introduction of the Identity and Language (Northern Ireland) Act, there are no procedures in place to protect a right to use Irish in Northern Irish courtrooms. It will be for Northern Ireland 's Justice Minister, Naomi Long, to introduce the guidelines which will give effect to the new Act there. At present, the primary concern is how any procedures would define necessity. Will a person need to demonstrate a certain level of fluency, or that they will suffer a particular degree of prejudice in order to prove it is 'necessary' for them to use Irish during a hearing? Beyond the six counties, the position in Ireland is, on paper, more favourable, with statutory and constitutional protections of the right to speak Irish in court. Yet, even here, the practical challenges and negative impacts of speaking Irish can often deter parties from using it. The most basic obstacle facing Irish speakers across all the UK and Ireland was mentioned by the judge during Ó hAnnaidh's last appearance in court – it can often be difficult to locate an interpreter. In the UK, there is, at least, a National Register of Public Service Interpreters. The register determines who is qualified to interpret court proceedings. It requires interpreters to prove they have an approved qualification, while they must undertake training to act in courtroom settings. READ MORE Yet even with that infrastructure in place, an interpreter was still proving hard to find when Ó hAnnaidh was last in court. No such register is maintained in Ireland and there is no central registration or regulation of interpreters, let alone those sufficiently qualified to act in courtroom settings. As a result, although there is a constitutional and statutory right to speak Irish in court in Ireland, it may be harder to locate a qualified interpreter in Ireland than in the UK – where no such right exists. Even where an interpreter is located, judges and lawyers who are not familiar with interpretation may fail to grasp the potential for crossed wires and bias that result from linguistic differences and the process of interpretation itself. An Irish speaker will not, for example, be able to give the same monosyllabic yes or no answer that an English-speaking witness would. The potential impression of being evasive, vague or contradictory where small differences in language and meaning have tangible legal outcomes is real. In cases where interpreters lack specific courtroom experience, and legal proceedings lack guidelines for how to deal with interpreters, those risks can be realised all too easily. In Australia and the US, researchers have established that linguistic differences and small changes introduced by interpreters, such as hesitating words like 'ah' or 'um', can cause witnesses to appear untrustworthy or evasive. Negative perceptions of those who choose to speak a minority language, including Irish, can also have very real impacts on the choice to use a language in court. The choice to use a language, including Irish, is often seen as political - aligning the speaker (whether rightly or wrongly) with a particular ideology or political group. In such cases, the choice to speak (or refuse to speak) a particular language can be read as a rejection of institutions which operate through another tongue, or as an effort to shame non-speakers. Hardly the note to strike when appealing to a judge or a jury. It is likely Ó hAnnaidh will have to contend with at least some of these negative tropes if his hearing proceeds using an Irish interpreter Minority language speakers can be perceived as difficult; seeking to gain an advantage by inconveniencing the other parties in a trial. Similarly, they can be considered untrustworthy - using the delay interpretation requires to more carefully consider their answers, or to deliberately misunderstand a question to buy time. In Ireland, these perceptions are often based on the assumption that there is no such thing as a person who is more comfortable speaking Irish than English. Yet while English may be dominant in terms of the number of daily users, there are still those who – in the face of the formalities and consequences of the legal process – would rather have the security of the language they know best when they must answer questions on which their liberty or livelihood depend. It is likely Ó hAnnaidh will have to contend with at least some of these negative tropes if his hearing proceeds using an Irish interpreter. In being tried in the UK he will, at least, have the benefit of a system in which interpretation is regulated. On this side of the Irish sea, the case is an opportunity to reflect on why negative tropes concerning Irish speakers persist - inside and outside our justice system. It also presents an opportunity to give practical effect to the official status of Irish in courtrooms across the island. Furthermore, it presents an opening to recognise that the issues impacting Irish speakers are ones which reach through our society – and our justice systems - more broadly. Poor standards of interpretation, as well as the legal profession's lack of training on how to conduct a hearing in which interpreters are involved, are barriers to accessing justice and securing a fair trial. They profoundly impact all our minority language communities – including those navigating the international protection system. Irish speakers, Irish citizens, Irish residents and those seeking to make a life here all deserve a justice system in which the language they speak does not determine the reach of their voice, or the reception of their testimony. Dr Róisín Á Costello is an Assistant Professor at the School of Law, Trinity College Dublin and a practicing barrister.
Irish Times
27 minutes ago
- Irish Times
In Heather Humphreys, Fine Gael faithful think they've found their first president
A successful 2025 presidential election campaign is likely to demand a candidate who can command support within party politics but still foster an identity that exists outside of it. A cascade of nominations for Heather Humphreys from the majority of the Fine Gael parliamentary party started rolling in on Tuesday as soon as she announced her intention to run. But the most vital endorsements came days ago from Independent politicians Michael Healy-Rae, Seán Canney and Noel Grealish. This attracted significant attention in Fine Gael, which knows very few of its party members would be able to attract such support. This is why the current tally at the time of writing of more than 30 endorsements for Humphreys and fewer than 10 for Seán Kelly does a disservice to the MEP and former GAA chief. The Munster vote-getter is well respected within his party, and it wasn't without some anguish that some of his party colleagues declared for Humphreys instead. But the momentum was going one way. The buoyant mood in Fine Gael this week is that of a party that thinks it's found its first ever president of Ireland. Fine Gael was planning to formally launch Mairead McGuinness's campaign in the days before the National Ploughing Championships in Tullamore, which will kick off in the third week of September. The campaign launch date will be kept the same for the new Fine Gael candidate – in all likelihood Humphreys – which the party is presenting as proof that it hasn't lost any time. The time that elapsed between McGuinness dropping out and the party finding two new candidates was so brief, Tánaiste Simon Harris never once found himself in front of a microphone having to account for what his party's plan was now. READ MORE Though the nomination process will technically continue for another week, Fine Gael is already actively planning how its campaign could be altered to suit Humphreys. Some elements of the McGuinness campaign can be transferred to Humphreys who, like the former MEP, shares a penchant for an agricultural show. But under Humphreys, the campaign would shift more towards the themes of community and a shared island. Think Tidy Towns and tolerance. [ Heather Humphreys and Seán Kelly presidential face-off expected as Fine Gael reopens nominations Opens in new window ] Fine Gael is expecting opposition to a Humphreys campaign to try to tie her to Government failings in housing and health over her 10 years at the cabinet table. This was borne out in a press release from Sinn Féin on Tuesday evening, which said 'Heather Humphreys will have to account for 14 years of Fine Gael failure'. Humphreys will face tough questions on aspects of her government record, including her role as director of elections for the failed 2024 referendums, a Green Paper on disability reform that was so controversial it had to be withdrawn, and her reported opposition to an increase in jobseeker's allowance. But Fine Gael figures are confident that Humphreys' time as a minister was 'very impactful but not that controversial' given she never held a portfolio such as health or housing. If its candidate is Humphreys, Fine Gael has enough humility to know that her strength will be that she doesn't seem all that Fine Gael. There used to be a running joke at cabinet that the former minister got on better with Fianna Fáil than she did with her own party colleagues. The reason Humphreys attracted so much support within Fine Gael's parliamentary party is because politicians recognised her ability to attract support from all kinds of people outside it. For example, earlier this year she sat down for a podcast interview with former president Mary McAleese and broadcaster Mary Kennedy. As Humphreys was talking about how much she likes playing the piano, McAleese pointedly interrupted her: 'There's a great Steinway in the Áras.'
Irish Times
27 minutes ago
- Irish Times
Seán Moran: The FRC set out to save football but may also have rescued referees
We are now less than two weeks from the start of the wild bird hunting season. Soon, shots will ring out, portending existential danger for, among others, red grouse, mallards, gadwalls, shovellers and tufted ducks. And traditionally, referees, who have come to regard this time of year with much the same trepidation as a golden plover. In October 2022, then president Larry McCarthy launched a protection programme, Respect the Referee. The backdrop was almost weekly bulletins on spectator and team official outrages directed at referees. To attend the launch, I had to reschedule a coffee morning. When I explained that I would be attending a new initiative to assist referees, my deferred appointment helpfully suggested something that might also be of interest to game birds: 'Arm them?' In its crusade to save football, however, the Football Review Committee (FRC) may well have provided less lethal measures to rescue refereeing. The impact of the various rule changes or enhancements has been well publicised, especially the solo and go with its tidying up of the flashpoints that occur when a free is awarded. READ MORE The penalties for disrespecting refereeing decisions are also severe – including the 50-metre advancement of disputed frees – and have had the predictable effect of discouraging and vastly reducing dissent and gamesmanship in interactions with referees, allowing match officials clearer minds and greater bandwidth to deal with the primary tasks of upholding rules. There is, though, more to the FRC's impact than the obvious starting point of penalising bad behaviour to the extent that it becomes unprofitable. There were also the methods by which the proposals were formulated in the first place. Speakin g to The Irish Times on Saturday , Tyrone All-Ireland referee Seán Hurson strongly made this point. 'We've seen changes in the past where there was no consultation with officials and then, rules were maybe not implemented the way that some people thought they should have been implemented,' Hurson said. 'But this time, both FRC and the officials seem to be happy, based on our last meeting there a few weeks ago. They also took to heart different recommendations through the season, which was probably a direct result of some of the meetings. 'So, we felt as referees that we were being listened to, and issues that we were having were being addressed.' Coincidentally, on the same day Monaghan intercounty referee Martin McNally was making the same point to Colm Keys in the Irish Independent. Referee Martin McNally said referees have been able to bring concerns and recommendations to the FRC. Photograph: James Crombie/Inpho 'We have had Jim Gavin [FRC chairman] present at nearly every referees' meeting. We have had input and have been able to bring concerns and recommendations to the FRC. It's not a case that these things were being dictated to us,' he said. The easy-going give and take between the committee and referees allowed issues to be resolved without difficulty. This was useful in implementing the stipulation that only captains could speak with the match official. Hurson felt that restriction was a bit of a straitjacket because he valued talking to players, arguing that all referees knew instinctively the difference between genuine queries, particularly given the experimental nature of the rules, and backchat. Having sought clarification from Gavin, he was told that 'the communication was still okay'. [ Four-point goals and handpass restrictions: My experience of playing with football's latest experimental rules Opens in new window ] Maurice Deegan, the former All-Ireland referee and FRC member, who took charge of intercounty practice matches and wrote about for The Irish Times , observed that the knowledge of the new rules on the part of players was very good, often better than in respect of the original rule book. Deegan also said that the two-way communication illustrated genuine interest in the new rules and making sure they were properly grasped. This collaborative approach – administrators, match officials, players and management all pulling together – has been central to the success of the rules and their positive impact. It is true that the new measures are currently under the spotlight during club matches and a season of championships at those levels have yet to be concluded and analysed. It is also true that perhaps the full ordnance of managerial and coach analysis of the new dispensation has yet to be devised with a view to pressurising referees in whatever grey areas can be identified. Neither of these potential vulnerabilities have yet come to pass and the goodwill and co-operation that marked the first six months of the FRC framework have set a positive precedent, but there will be anxious eyes on how it is all progressing. Should the optimal evolution of either game be held back simply to bolster uniformity? Club players are, by most accounts, equally as happy with the FRC rules as their intercounty colleagues and that enthusiasm can help them to bed in this club season. One issue that is coming under strain is the growing disparity between football and hurling rules. Were the four-point goal, which was again trialled recently after being dropped at the start of the year, to re-emerge it would drive in the wedge between the games that little bit deeper. This is not altogether new. After all, in the late Joe Lennon's exhaustive 2000 study, Towards a Philosophy for Legislation in Gaelic games, he states: 'Since these games are completely different in form, it is not surprising that the first sets of rules were also quite different...' The hurling field of play (200 yards x 150) was more than three times the size of a football pitch (120 x 80) and the goals considerably larger (20 x 10 compared with 15 x 8) and playing time was 80 minutes, compared to an hour. Back on planet 21st century, the problem is practical. As Donal Smyth, Croke Park's manager of match officials put it, 'we have 40 per cent of our referees that do dual hurling and football, so one game going away from the other can be a big problem'. Nonetheless, should the optimal evolution of either game be held back simply to bolster uniformity?
