Controversy the PDs could have done without

Bobby Molloy's PD colleagues are praying that his version of events stands up, writes Mark Brennock.

Bobby Molloy's PD colleagues are praying that his version of events stands up, writes Mark Brennock.

The bombshell dropped by Mr Justice Philip O'Sullivan yesterday could not have more serious implications for Mr Bobby Molloy.

A malign scenario can be interpreted from the comments made by the judge in court yesterday when passing sentence on a man convicted of a series of horrific rapes of his daughter. This is that Mr Molloy instructed an official to contact the judge to seek improperly to speak to him at home about a letter sent on behalf of the convicted man.

Mr Molloy said last night that he had done no such thing. He had merely made a "clerical inquiry" as to whether a letter had arrived; he had made no attempt to contact or influence the judge; he recognised that what he had done was nevertheless wrong; and he apologised to the judge and to the family of the rape victim.

READ MORE

For much of yesterday afternoon Mr Molloy was closeted with Mary Harney, Michael McDowell, Liz O'Donnell and several key advisers. When these deliberations finally resulted in an eight-sentence statement from Mr Molloy, the Opposition calls for his resignation were out within minutes.

Mr Molloy has not disputed that he sought to find out from the judge's own office rather than from the court registrar whether the judge had received a letter written on behalf of the man convicted of repeatedly raping his daughter.

The letter was written by the man's sister after her brother was convicted but before he was sentenced by the judge. She had asked Mr Molloy to make the inquiry.

As Fine Gael's justice spokesman, Alan Shatter, pointed out last night, it would be improper for a trial judge to have any regard to such a letter anyway. "If people could send letters in to members of the judiciary for them to have a quiet read, then the whole system of justice would collapse," he said.

So Mr Molloy was basically inquiring of the judge whether he had received a letter it would have been improper of him to take into account.

Indeed, Mr Justice O'Sullivan told the court yesterday that he had received two letters in connection with the case and had handed them unopened to his registrar.

But there is a second, more serious aspect to the incident about which the judge's version and that of Mr Molloy are in direct conflict. According to the judge, the official who phoned him from Mr Molloy's office went on to ask if the judge could be telephoned at home concerning the matter.

The implication clearly taken by the judge was that Mr Molloy wanted to have a quiet word on the matter. The judge said no.

Mr Molloy has said he never suggested "that direct contact should be made to the judge at his chambers or at home". He also says his official is confident that she did not make an inquiry as to whether the judge could be contacted at home.

Mr Molloy told reporters last night that he believed his official. If this is correct, the implication is that the judge's recollection is faulty.

Mr Justice Philip O'Sullivan is among the most respected and precise High Court judges. In his comments in court yesterday, he indicated that he had seen the approach as having come from Mr Molloy. He was surprised that someone "of the status of a government minister" would make such an approach. He said all communications in a case should be made through the court registrar. Justice should be conducted in public and there was no question of any "behind-the-door" work taking place.

The Progressive Democrats need this like a hole in the head. Mr Molloy is one of just three Progressive Democrat candidates seen as likely to be returned to the Dáil. Other candidates will require enormous work and good fortune to be elected.

Mr Molloy last night admitted that the affair could do him electoral damage, not just because of any perception that he attempted to influence a judge, but because of the nature of the case, which he said was "horrific".

Speaking to reporters in Leinster House last night, he insisted that he had not and would never seek to influence a judge. But he added: "The perception is not very healthy."