Government accounts of the sequence of events in the Sheedy affair have now contradicted each other in several respects.
The political correspondent of the Sunday Business Post, Mark O'Connell, said yesterday that on April 18th, Mr Ahern told him he had received "an approach" from Mr Philip Sheedy snr in relation to the case. Mr Ahern knew something about Mr Sheedy snr. He could say, for example, that he worked in a FAS centre in his constituency. However, last Saturday he suggested to the Sunday Tribune that he was not, in fact, sure who had made representations to him. He said he may have got a letter from Mr Sheedy snr.
On Sunday, he told reporters in Adare, Co Limerick that he believed that he had. By Monday, he could tell reporters that he had got a "very nice letter" from Mr Sheedy snr. He could recall details of it, and suggested that his recall of it was so good that he could "put what he said in that letter into the public domain".
The Government spokesman said yesterday that Mr Ahern now believed the representation he received in relation to Sheedy was posted or delivered to his constituency office at St Luke's, Drumcondra. It was first seen by him on July 9th, 1998.
According to the spokesman, it consisted of a published document concerning FAS training schemes with a note attached. The note gave details of Sheedy and where he was imprisoned. Mr Ahern does not believe there was a formal letter accompanying. The spokesman says Mr Ahern believes he transcribed the details from the covering note onto a piece of old headed notepaper from a previous Spanish or Portuguese EU presidency. It is not uncommon for politicians to use such foreign stationery as constituency office notepaper.
On the same notepaper, the spokesman says, he wrote a request to his private secretary, Mr George Shaw, asking him to ask the Department of Justice whether anything could be done about getting Sheedy day release.
He later gave this notepaper to Mr Shaw who made the inquiry, by telephone, to the Minister for Justice's private secretary.
Mr Shaw was told day release was not possible as Sheedy's sentence was to be reviewed in October 1999, and no day release could be contemplated until after that. He wrote a note to this effect on the piece of notepaper he had been given by Mr Ahern and this was filed in the Taoiseach's office.
The Government spokesman said yesterday that the original note attached to the FAS documentation could not be found, and that Mr Ahern believed he might have thrown it away after he transcribed the details on to the note for Mr Shaw. If the note was thrown away, it is curious that Mr Ahern could say the following to reporters on Monday night outside Government Buildings: "I was merely asked in a very nice letter from Philip Sheedy snr could I see if his son could make some payback to society for what he had done wrong - and he even offered himself to do something. If I had his permission, perhaps I could put what he said in that letter into the public domain. But he certainly did not try to influence me or anybody else about the early release."
Mr Ahern's confidence that he could put the content of Mr Sheedy snr's letter into the public domain, in the light of the fact that the Government says this letter is missing, is extraordinary.
Yesterday, the Government spokesman insisted that the letter or note from Mr Sheedy snr had still not been found. What had been received was most likely a note which had been discarded by Mr Ahern in July.
Another inconsistency arises over Mr Ahern's account of what happened.
He has sought to place his query in relation to the Sheedy case in the context of him being a politician who is asked to make many inquiries and representations for people.
As evidence of this he told the Sunday Tribune at the weekend that he had also made representations on behalf of Mr John Ryan, whose wife, Anne, was killed in the incident for which Sheedy was convicted of drunk driving causing death. "I followed that one far more diligently," he said.
In fact, Mr Ahern did not reply to a letter from Mr Ryan on February 15th until April 13th, two months later. According to a Government spokesman, Mr Ryan wrote to him in February expressing "a deep sense of betrayal" by the legal system that he and his family felt as a result of the release of Sheedy.
The day after Mr Ahern received the letter, February 16th, he sent a written representation to the Department of Justice in relation to it. There was no reply.
The reactivation of the matter came just two days before the publication of the Hamilton report on the judicial conduct of the affair. This was very shortly after the Taoiseach had been told that his inquiry to the Department of Justice of the previous July had in fact been registered on file.
The Minister for Justice said on Sunday that news of this item on the file had been communicated to the Taoiseach's office in "early April". A Department of Justice spokesman said yesterday he thought this communication had taken place in the working week beginning Easter Tuesday, April 6th.
A spokesman for the Taoiseach said yesterday he believed this communication took place in the week beginning April 12th. The Taoiseach gave this information to the Tanaiste, Ms Harney, on April 14th.
This news was followed by considerable activity in relation to Mr Ryan's representation. Some time between April 12th and April 14th, the Taoiseach's office contacted the Department of Justice asking for a reply to the representation on behalf of Mr Ryan sent two months earlier. On April 13th, Mr Ahern's private secretary, Mr Brendan Ward, rang Mr Ryan to apologise for the delay in responding to his letter of two months previously. He said the Taoiseach would respond as soon as the Hamilton report was published.
On April 16th, the day after the publication of the Hamilton report, Mr Ahern rang Mr Ryan and discussed the report with him. On that day, the Department of Justice finally responded to Mr Ahern's letter of February 16th.
