My initial reaction to the whole Sheedy affair was that it would do serious damage to the public's faith in the judiciary. Having had a couple of days since the resignations to think about it, I realise that that reaction was wrong.
Firstly, the public already has a somewhat jaundiced view of our judges. On an almost weekly basis reports appear of unexpected comments, erratic sentences and the occasional prima donna outburst emanating from the beaks of the beaks. There is a quiet understanding that judges are an eccentric bunch; even for littering, some are liable to throw you in jail while others might let you off entirely. They are seen as absent-minded professors who've spent so much time in the rarefied atmosphere of the courtroom that they have become disconnected from reality.
At the same time it is recognised that some judges seem fair and sensible based on their judgments on, for example, the X case. Some have also been entrusted with the running of our various tribunals and the people seem happy enough with this. But the overall impression, nonetheless, is that judges are a bit odd.
Secondly, I'm not entirely sure the public really gives a damn about the Sheedy case and that's probably because it is so difficult to understand. The Hamilton report, while clearly demonstrating that the involvement of Mr Justice Hugh O'Flaherty and Mr Justice Cyril Kelly was, at least, questionable, does not clear up precisely what happened. Most people don't know how cases are supposed to be referred, what the role of a registrar is or exactly how senior or otherwise a Circuit Court judge is. Consequently their chances of making head or tail of what has happened is minimal.
Nora Owen's comments that there was some mysterious Caherciveen connection, coming as they did from a former minister for justice who should know better, and her refusal to withdraw those remarks for so long, can only have added to the mystery.
Thirdly, it is naive to assume that the public believes judges are above influence. Now, I want to make it perfectly clear that, as a minister for justice, my experience was that judges do act independently and without fear or favour. One of the more complex tasks coming with the justice cabinet seat is dealing with the fallout of some of the more independent actions of the judiciary while having no influence whatsoever on those actions. Our citizens don't spend that much time in courtrooms, so they have little opportunity to experience that impartiality at first hand. It is therefore unreasonable to expect them to have the same perspective. They are also aware that politicians appoint judges and the unavoidable, though false, reaction is that this must leave them open to political influence.
What the Sheedy story has done is to slot nicely into an existing set of prejudices and reinforce them. The damage had already been done. This case just helped to entrench those opinions.
In order to restore the public's faith in the judicial system, the Minister must first bring the Sheedy case to a timely conclusion. All three key players will have to be required to explain their motivations and, should those motives prove to be unethical, sanctions must be taken.
And then the really hard work will start. The sixth and final Denham report was published this week and, in two of its sections, addresses central problems with the judicial system. Its comments on judicial conduct and the imposition of a code of ethics point in the right direction but will not, in their current form, be far-reaching enough to convince the public.
A statutory independent watchdog body is what is needed - one with the power to examine complaints against the judiciary and establish and maintain standards of work - as well as a code of conduct and a means to discipline errant judges. A self-regulating system such as was detailed in the Denham report, while likely to be effective, will not reassure the citizenry. In order to bring a statutory system into operation, constitutional change will be required, but the time and effort involved in that process would be well spent.
The second vital section of the report deals with information and access to court documents. Trust and confidence in our judicial system cannot be established while it continues to operate in such a closed fashion. Currently everything from the language and clothing of the principals to the procedures and rituals of the courtroom seem designed to exclude the uninitiated. Denham recommends that information should be made more widely available to the public and that judgments should be published on the Internet. Her report also addresses the way in which court cases are reported, advocating regular contacts between journalists, judges' representatives and court staff. It goes on to state that the acoustics of courtrooms should be improved and basic press facilities provided.
It is this attention to practical details that makes the Denham report such a useful starting point for Mr O'Donoghue. But he must recognise that it is only a starting point.
Changing so many people's assumptions about life in our courtrooms will be a massive task. It will require continuing scrutiny of how the courts operate to identify the barriers to people's participation and understanding that can be removed while maintaining the integrity of the system. It will require that the changes being made are explained to the public so that they are aware there is a logic behind them. And all of this must be carried out in such a fashion that the independence of the judiciary remains uncompromised.