Chambers hearing may have been error - judge

Judge Donnchadh O Buachalla has admitted he might have made a mistake in not holding a hearing in open court on the licence transfer of Jack White's Inn.

He told the O Buachalla inquiry that an error might have been made in not moving the hearing into the main body of the court. However, the court was empty and all the concerned parties were at the hearing.

The hearing was held in his chambers in Wexford courthouse on September 29th, 1997, and resulted in Tom Nevin's name being removed from the pub licence and the licence being granted in Catherine Nevin's sole name the following day.

"I do accept indeed that an error might be made by me in so far as I was . . . conducting a judicial act," he told Mr Justice Frank Murphy's inquiry.

He believed the hearing was merely to clarify the situation about the licence. "But it was to clarify; it was for an administrative clarification. That is my view and I still remain of that view."

He had earlier told the inquiry that "no alarm bells rang whatsoever" when he held the hearing in his private chambers.

Asked why Insp Finn from the Gorey district was present at the hearing, he said he had requested it because of "certain controversies and circumstances" surrounding Jack White's Inn. He wanted to ensure the gardai were happy with the approach taken.

Asked what could gardai have done if they were unhappy with his actions, the judge said they could have taken it to a higher court.

On several occasions he said there was "nothing furtive" about his decision to hold the hearing in his chambers. The court had emptied, the relevant persons were in his chambers and the meeting went ahead.

He said he would regularly have meetings such as this in his chambers to clarify a situation or sort out an administrative problem. "That's the way things work in the countryside."

Earlier yesterday Judge O Buachalla had emphasised that he did not give advice to Catherine Nevin's solicitor on the licence issue. He made a clear differentiation between advice and guidance and said it was guidance he offered on the question of the licence transfer. "As you know, Mr Ryan, my function was not to be giving advice. I would not be giving advice. I was listening to what was said," he told Mr Sean Ryan SC, for the inquiry.

Mr Ryan asked Judge O Buachalla why he was involved in the issue in the first place. The judge said he saw it as a courtesy by the parties involved to keep him abreast of the proceedings in what was "a unique situation".

He repeated his view that the removal of Tom Nevin's name from the licence was an administrative or technical issue. "Customs and Excise appeared to be having a difficulty which they hadn't come across before," said Judge O Buachalla. "An instrument of some kind was what they were seeking."

He said that was why he provided the authorisation letter in June 1997, which said he had no difficulties with the renewal of the licence in Catherine Nevin's name and said he had told Mr Donnchadh Lehane, Catherine Nevin's solicitor, that the court would assist him if possible in helping to "regularise the licensing record".

He was asked by Mr an Ryan whether he believed he had jurisdiction in sending the authorisation letter to the Revenue Commissioners.

Judge O Buachalla said he felt he did have the jurisdiction under the general jurisdiction of the licensing judge.

He said he was not conducting a judicial act when he signed the authorisation letter.

He also told the inquiry that he never discussed the licence issue with either Catherine or Tom Nevin. He said he knew Tom and Catherine Nevin very well, from about late 1993 to 1996. He had been calling to their pub possibly twice a week and sometimes three times a week up to Tom Nevin's murder.

"After that I did continue to call in again, possibly not as frequently but I did call in again."

Asked if he had discussed the licence transfer with Mrs Nevin, he said: "Absolutely not."

"Had she discussed it with you?" Mr Ryan asked.

"Absolutely not," the judge replied.