The Case of a Convicted Murderer Still on the State Payroll
The Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage has faced scrutiny over whether a man convicted of murder was still receiving a salary from the State as recently as February. This revelation has sparked significant concern and calls for reform in how the government handles such cases.
The individual in question, Mr. Kilroy, was a former park ranger with the National Parks and Wildlife Service (NPWS). He was arrested in June 2019 after beating, stabbing, and strangling his wife, Valerie French, while their three children slept. After two collapsed trials, he was finally convicted of her murder in July of last year. The jury rejected his plea of not guilty by reason of insanity.
Despite his conviction, it emerged that Mr. Kilroy was still being paid by the Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage. This information came to light through an inquiry conducted by Extra, which prompted a response from the department. On February 19, a spokesman stated that the matter was under legal correspondence but declined to comment on individual circumstances.
However, this stance changed when the department issued a denial stating that no one serving a prison sentence for a serious offence like murder is on the State payroll. This clarification raised further questions about why Mr. Kilroy was still receiving payments, especially considering he had been behind bars for almost six years since the crime.
Legal Anomalies and Public Outcry
The case has also brought attention to the legal anomaly that allowed Mr. Kilroy to retain guardianship of the couple’s three children after murdering their mother. Valerie French, a 41-year-old occupational therapist from Leap, Co. Cork, was left without any legal protection for her children following her death.
Her brother, David French, has been advocating for changes to the law and recently published a book detailing the aftermath of his sister’s murder. He has submitted multiple Freedom of Information (FOI) requests to determine when the State stopped paying Mr. Kilroy a salary. However, these requests have been repeatedly denied, citing privacy concerns.
An initial FOI request was rejected on the grounds that personal information could not be shared. A second request, asking about protocols for dealing with serious crimes, was met with the response that such cases are handled on a case-by-case basis. A final request regarding the number of employees not reporting to work in the past five years was also denied, again citing personal information concerns.
Calls for Reform and Legal Expert Opinions
The situation has drawn criticism from various quarters, including political figures and legal experts. People Before Profit-Solidarity TD Ruth Coppinger raised the issue in the Dáil, prompting Taoiseach Micheál Martin to acknowledge the need for further investigation.
Ms. Coppinger expressed concern over the possibility that someone publicly tried and convicted for murder could still be receiving payments from the State. An employment law expert noted that there is no legal justification for a convicted individual to continue receiving a salary. They suggested that the situation might be due to administrative error, with Mr. Kilroy remaining on “special leave” rather than being formally terminated.
Another possible explanation considered was that the salary might be placed in trust for the children, given that Mr. Kilroy is unable to provide for them. However, this arrangement lacks legal authority.
Government Response and Union Perspectives
A spokesman for the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform emphasized that dismissal is likely for civil servants convicted of serious offences, subject to specific circumstances and internal procedures. They referenced the Civil Service Disciplinary Code, which outlines that serious misconduct can warrant dismissal or other severe sanctions.
A source from a union representing civil servants confirmed that decisions are made on a case-by-case basis. They highlighted the complexity of criminal law, noting that each case is unique and requires individual consideration.
Mr. Kilroy’s legal team, Thomas J Walsh Solicitors, did not respond to requests for comment.
Ongoing Concerns and Future Steps
As the debate continues, the case of Mr. Kilroy raises broader questions about the handling of employees convicted of serious crimes. It underscores the need for transparency, accountability, and reform in how the State manages such situations. The public remains concerned about the implications of allowing individuals convicted of heinous crimes to remain on the payroll, and calls for comprehensive legal review and policy changes are growing louder.
