The Government's response to Miss Justice Laffoy's resignation from the Commission on Child Abuse, and the release of the correspondence leading up to it, does little to bolster its contention that her decision to step down came "as a bolt from the blue".
It is clear that from last December, when the Commission sought additional resources in order to speed up the work of the Investigation Committee, and the Government announced a review of its remit, that the Commission was deeply concerned about the legal basis on which it was operating.
In its response at the time, the Commission suggested suspending the work of the Investigation Committee, adding that enabling legislation to allow this "would be very simple", and that it would "solve the extreme difficulties into which the Investigation Committee has been placed as a result of the Government decision." These difficulties were exacerbated by the Government decision in April effectively to reject its own review, which had even made it as far as draft legislation.
It then embarked on a further review, which is still ongoing. That prompted Miss Justice Laffoy to express even graver concern. Counsel for the Commission had given the opinion that documents obtained by it under its existing mandate were unlikely to be usable under a new mandate. It was clear that Miss Justice Laffoy felt that the Commission could not now carry out much of its investigatory work. It was also clear that the second review, incorporating a High Court judgment yet to be delivered and likely to be appealed, would not be completed until 2004, and new legislation would then have to be drafted.
So what was the judge to do in the meantime? What were the staff engaged in the work of the investigation committee to do? It is clear from the correspondence that Miss Justice Laffoy felt there was little they could do, and the legal arguments she put forward have not been rebutted by the Government. In these circumstances it is understandable that she felt she had no alternative but to resign - the indications that she might do so if the issues raised were not speedily resolved are plain to see in the documents published yesterday.
The question now is where the Government can go from here. It has already effectively admitted that the original legislation establishing the Commission was flawed. It may be, in retrospect, that it was seeking to square an impossible circle - meet the demands of the victims for public vindication, while producing a final arbitration on responsibility for the abuse they had suffered.
Given the lapse of time, it will be impossible for all the victims to confront their abusers and have their allegations adjudicated upon. The work of the confidential committee and of the Redress Board continues, as they must. But it may be that a different way, other than hearings in a quasi-court, will have to be found to obtain as much information as is practicable about what happened to the children incarcerated in institutions up to 50 years ago.