The main body of the report of the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform deals with the actions of court officials in the Sheedy case. This is an edited version
2.1. As the central facts have been outlined in the report of the Chief Justice we do not see the need to recite them again in detail in this report. Some of the salient facts, for the purpose of our inquiries are set out in the following paragraphs.
2.2 In October 1998, following a conversation with Mr Justice Hugh O'Flaherty, the County Registrar for Dublin, Mr Michael Quinlan sought the file in the DPP v Sheedy case from the Circuit Court staff under his control.
2.3 According to the County Registrar he contacted the solicitor on record in the case, Mr John Walsh of Walkinstown, who informed him that Mr Michael Staines solicitor would be taking over this case.
2.4 He says that he then got in touch with Mr Staines, who said he had not spoken to his client yet. The County Registrar advised that if Mr Staines received instructions to do so he could take an application before a judge of the Circuit Court who might or might not be willing to hear and deal with it. He recommended that any application be made to the Judge in Court 24. Court 24 is the Circuit Criminal "call over" court which deals, inter alia, with miscellaneous criminal court business. According to the County Registrar, the judge in Court 24 "happened to be Judge Kelly as Judge Mathews was not sitting in Dublin".
2.5 A week or so later, according to the County Registrar, Mr Staines advised that he had seen Mr Sheedy and requested that the file be made available to the court. The County Registrar proceeded to hand the court file to Mr Brendan O'Donnell, Higher Executive Officer in the Circuit Court Office, and asked him to have the case listed for November 12th, 1998. He then informed Mr Justice O'Flaherty that the case was being relisted.
2.6 In compliance with the County Registrar's direction to put the case into the court list for November, Mr Brendan O'Donnell (HEO) phoned Ms Mary Dowries (clerical officer) who dealt with the Circuit Criminal lists in the Circuit Court Office to have the case listed.
2.7 On November 10th, 1998 Mr Michael O'Donnell, Higher Executive Officer, Circuit Criminal Court Office and Court Registrar at that time to Court 24, was contacted by phone by a prison officer in Shelton Abbey Prison, inquiring if the DPP v Sheedy case was listed in the Circuit Criminal Court on November 12th, 1998. Although the case was not in the list on that date, according to the court sheet relating to the case, Mr O'Donnell checked with Ms Noeleen Donnery (clerical officer) in the Circuit Court Office, who also deals with Circuit Criminal lists. Mr O'Donnell was informed that the case was listed for November 12th, 1998.
2.8 Mr. O'Donnell then contacted the prison officer and confirmed that the case was listed for November 12th, and informed him that Judge Kelly would be dealing with the court list on that day. The prison officer requested a note to the Governor of Shelton Abbey requesting that Philip Sheedy be produced on November 12th; this request was duly complied with.
2.9 On November 11th the list for Circuit Court No 24 for November 12th was sent by fax to the Chief State Solicitor's Office in line with normal practice.
Our Enquiries
2.10 The outcome and events leading up to the release of Mr Sheedy on November 12th, 1998 were brought to the attention of the Minister as he outlined in his statement to Dail Eireann on April 1st, 1999.
2.11 On the evening of February 10th, when the Minister was in Berlin attending an EU meeting, he received a phone call from the Attorney General. The Attorney General informed him that he had been approached by the DPP over the fact that the State had not received any advance notice of the application to the Circuit Court which resulted in the early release of Mr Sheedy from prison. Of particular concern was the fact that there were rumours to the effect that the listing of the case and/or the fact that the State had received no advance notification may have been brought about by improper practice (as distinct from error or omission) within the courts. During that conversation, the Minister decided that an inquiry should be established and the Attorney General said he would inform the Chief Justice. On the following morning, the Minister phoned the Secretary General of the Department and asked that the Garda Commissioner should investigate the matter.
2.12. On the same morning the Secretary General contacted Mr Noel Conroy, Deputy Commissioner of the Garda Siochana (in the absence of the Commissioner) and asked him what information he had on the matter. He also obtained some outline factual information on the case within the Department. The Secretary General spoke that morning, too, to the Attorney General who gave him an account of what the DPP had said to him.
2.13 While the Attorney General's phone call on February 10th was the first the Minister heard of this matter, a letter had been received by his office from Edward T. O'Connor & Co Solicitors, on behalf of the family of Mrs Anne Ryan deceased, the victim of the accident in respect of which Mr Sheedy was charged. The Minister referred to this in his statement to the Dail on April 1st, 1999.
2.14 On the basis of his contact in which it was confirmed that no complaint or request for a criminal investigation had been made by the DPP, whose initial contact with the Attorney General sparked off the inquiries, the Secretary General having consulted with the Garda authorities, advised the Minister that it would not be appropriate to initiate, at that time, a criminal investigation, particularly against the background where the DPP was about to initiate judicial review proceedings which have of course, since taken place.
2.15 The Minister accordingly decided that official level inquiries should proceed but should be conducted in such a way as not to jeopardise the upcoming court proceedings.
2.16 The Secretary General immediately requested information on the DPP v Sheedy case from courts division. A brief note on the information available in the division was submitted to him on February 11th. This note was based on phone conversations with Mr Seosamh O Braonain, Assistant Principal from the Dublin Circuit Court Office with courts division staff on February 10th and 11th. It included a report that the State were preparing to make an ex parte application for judicial review of the Circuit Court Order of November 12th, 1998 releasing Mr Sheedy from prison.
2.17 The Secretary General contacted the Dublin County Registrar by phone on Tuesday, February 16th, 1999 and asked if he could explain the circumstances in which this case had been listed, apparently without notice to the State. The County Registrar is responsible, inter alia, for the supervision and management of criminal court business in the Circuit Court Office. In response the County Registrar wrote to the Secretary General that day outlining some of the circumstances of the listing of the case.
2.18 Following this letter the Secretary General discussed the case with the Assistant Secretary with responsibility for the courts on February 18th, 1999. They agreed that further inquiries should be addressed to the County Registrar (following initial contacts on Tuesday, February 16th,) when judicial review proceedings in the case, due to be heard on February 22nd, 1999 had concluded.
2.19 On Wednesday, February 24th the Secretary General faxed a letter to the County Registrar, seeking specific information which had not been contained in the County Registrar's letter of February 16th.
2.20 On the same day the Secretary General wrote to the Chief State Solicitor enclosing a copy of his letter to the County Registrar and requesting information on what advance notifications had been received by his office in this case and whether there were departures from standing practice and, if any, the reasons therefor.
2.21 The County Registrar replied to the February 24th request on February 26th, providing the Secretary General with further information about his involvement in arrangements leading to the hearing of the case on November 12th, 1998.
2.28 The judicial review proceedings were dealt with in the High Court on March 25th, 1999. On March 26th the DPP's Office confirmed by phone the outcome of the review to the department and also stated that no further proceedings were contemplated by that office in relation to the listing of the case for the November 12th, 1998 hearing.