2.29 Some days later the Department received copies of the statement giving grounds of application for judicial review and appended affidavits and other court papers submitted in respect of the judicial review.
2.30 On March 30th courts division phoned the chief clerk in the Dublin Circuit Court Office, Ms Margaret O'Neill, and requested information about listing procedures for circuit criminal court cases. The chief clerk replied in writing explaining that:
"The Chief State Solicitor lists all new trials. In relation to applications made in particular cases, these are listed by the office on the understanding that the party making the application will notify the other parties involved."
2.31 A reply was received on March 31st from the Chief State Solicitor in response to the Secretary General's letters of February 24th and March 3rd, 1999. He explained that in view of his position as solicitor for the DPP in the judicial review proceedings, he considered it improper for him to reply until those proceedings had been resolved. In this letter the Chief State Solicitor clarifies that his office had no role in listing the case for November 12th and he attached a memorandum of an account of conversations between Mr Brian McCreary, law clerk in his office and Mr Luigi Rea BL and Mr Seosamh O Braonain of the Dublin Circuit Court Office in early February.
2.32 On the same day the Minister contacted the Attorney General in relation to the question of the appropriateness of making a complaint to the Garda Siochana concerning the manner in which the Sheedy case was listed, now that the judicial review proceedings had concluded. The Attorney advised that there was not sufficient basis, at that time, to refer the matter for a criminal investigation and that any decision whether to make a complaint to the Garda Siochana should await the outcome of the judicial and departmental inquiries.
2.33 On the following day, April Ist, 1999 the County Registrar wrote to the Minister describing how he first became aware of the case from a contact with Mr Justice Hugh O'Flaherty some time in October last. This letter contained vitally important information which had not, heretofore, been disclosed by the County Registrar. For example;
(i) it revealed, for the first time, that Mr Justice O'Flaherty had an involvement in the case in that he had originally contacted the County Registrar,
(ii) it also revealed that it was the County Registrar who contacted the defence solicitors, whereas the impression given in the County Registrar's letters prior to that was that the initiative came from the lawyers.
The County Registrar, in other words, had persisted in presenting a false account, though he knew the Minister was facing questions in the Dail on the issue generally.
2.37 The Secretary General together with the Assistant Secretary concerned met with the County Registrar on 9th April. The County Registrar was accompanied by his legal adviser, Mr L.K. Shields, solicitor. Following the meeting a letter issued to Mr Shields enclosing a copy of a contemporaneous note of the meeting and a series of 21 questions on which the department sought answers from the County Registrar.
2.42 An exchange of correspondence between the Department and L.K. Shields, solicitors for the County Registrar, took place on 14th April. The department first pressed for a reply to its series of questions by close of business that day. The solicitors in reply to the department's letter of April 9th submitted changes to the text of the contemporaneous note of the meeting enclosed in the April 9th letter and explained that his client had been obliged to assist the Chief Justice with his inquiries and had not had an opportunity to respond to the department.
2.43 On the afternoon of April 14th the department agreed the changes to the text of the note of the meeting on April 9th and pressed for a response to the outstanding questions without delay. At the same time a letter was received from L.K. Shields suggesting that in view of the imminence of the Chief Justice's report, his client should await sight of the Chief Justice's report before responding further.
2.44 On the same afternoon the department received the report of the Chief Justice containing much of the information already to hand at that stage but also information not previously known to the department. In particular, with regard to court officials, the letter from Mr Staines, solicitor is relevant.
2.46 On April 19th the Chief State Solicitor wrote to the Secretary General expressing his concern that the report of the department should not contain criticism on staff members of his office. He refers to differences in the accounts of Mr Brian McCreary of his office and Mr. Seosamh O Braonain of the Circuit Court Office in relation to their telephone conversation on 4th February which are outlined in the report of the Chief Justice. He also refers to the representation of his office at the hearing on November 12th and a statement by the County Registrar to the Chief Justice on April 13th 1999.
2.47 Mr Seosamh O Braonain of the Circuit Court Office also contacted the department by phone (Brian Fitzpatrick, Principal, Courts Division) on April 19th 1999 and faxed a copy of a letter which he sent to the County Registrar on April 14th 1999 concerning the contents of his conversation with Mr McCreary on February 4th. He emphasised that he would not have informed Mr McCreary that Mr Justice O'Flaherty had asked Mr Brendan O'Donnell of the Circuit Court Office to list this case. It was always Mr O Braonain's understanding that the County Registrar had requested Mr O'Donnell to arrange to list the case. In his telephone conversation Mr O Braonain sought clarification that his understanding on this matter was not inconsistent with his previous contacts with the department going back to February 10th. He was so assured.
2.48 On April 19th at 1.27 p.m. the Department received replies from Mr Quinlan via his solicitor to the twenty one questions put to him on 9th April.
Conclusions specific to officials
2.49 Following an approach by Mr Justice O'Flaherty, the County Registrar contacted Mr Sheedy's solicitors and arranged for the listing of this case for review. Mr Brendan O'Donnell and Ms Mary Downes were involved in aspects of the listing of this case but it is clear that they took their directions from the County Registrar who is their superior officer. These court officials together with the officials mentioned earlier in this report viz. Ms Noeleen Donnery and Mr Michael O'Donnell acted following instructions from the County Registrar. While some did realise that the way in which the relisting took place was unusual and might have raised their concerns with an appropriate person, it would be standard practice to follow the instructions of the County Registrar. It is worth making the point also, of course that the staff concerned work under considerable pressure in an office which handles a very large number of transactions on a daily basis. It is not surprising therefore, that they tend to rely on prosecution and defence legal teams to raise any issues concerning the competence of the Court to deal with the case. We do not consider that they acted improperly or that a case arises for disciplinary action against them.
2.50 The County Registrar is the senior Circuit Court official in Dublin. It is, we believe, reasonable to expect that the holder of this position would possess attributes which are expected of the holders of top positions elsewhere in the public service. These attributes include judgment, leadership and the capacity to act reliably and effectively, without supervision. On the facts available, a strong case can be made that Mr Quinlan's performance fell short of the required standards, in several respects.
2.51 He knew that the Sheedy case had been dealt with originally by a Circuit Court judge and ought to have known that the relisting of the case before another judge of the same court was, to say the very least of it, unusual; he should have known that the procedure was, in fact unsound. The point might be made, of course, that Mr Quinlan was not alone in settling for the procedure adopted. A senior judge - Mr Justice Cyril Kelly - went along with the procedure also.
2.52 It is necessary, in looking at Mr Quinlan's actions generally, to recognise that he appears to have taken it that it was his duty to meet what he took to be the wishes of one of the most senior members of the judiciary - Mr Justice Hugh O'Flaherty - by arranging to have the Sheedy case brought back quickly before the Court. In the words of the Chief justice:
"However, I cannot share Mr Justice O'Flaherty's belief that a judge of the Supreme Court, having called the County Registrar, an official of a lower court to his chambers, could expect that anything said by him would be received by the said official as if it had come from a private individual." Viewed benignly, in other words, it can be said that what Mr Quinlan did was simply to proceed eagerly, though in a manner and in circumstances clearly open to question, to implement what he took to be the wishes of Mr Justice O'Flaherty.
2.53 Whatever about his general standard of performance in having the case relisted, there is little doubt on the facts available that Mr Quinlan's whole approach, when it came to the official-level inquiry conducted by the Department, on the Minister's instructions, fell very far short of what can reasonably be expected of a senior official and on the face of it amounted to misbehaviour.
2.54 Mr Quinlan knew that the Minister needed to have facts and that the Minister would be relying on what he was told by the County Registrar when answering to the Dail. Yet he persisted, repeatedly, in presenting a false and misleading account of what had happened and only came forward with a letter containing the true facts, literally minutes before the Minister went before the Dail, on the 1st April, to make a full statement of the information which had been gleaned from inquiries to date. He judged, quite wrongly, that his obligation to protect the "confidentiality" of his contact with Mr Justice O'Flaherty, should take priority over his obligation to ensure that the Minister was in a position to give a factual account to Dail Eireann. He could have disclosed that he felt bound by confidentiality, and this issue could have been considered further - instead he presented a false account.
2.55 All material and information available to us in this matter right up to April 19th suggests that Mr Quinlan behaved inappropriately in relation to the court listing and in any event it is an incontrovertible fact, which can be seen from his correspondence with the department, that he had given a false misleading account to the department. Having read and considered answers to the 21 questions posed, we consider that the series of replies given by him failed in any material way to alter the conclusion set below.
2.56 Overall and subject to any further information Mr Quinlan is in a position make available in the context of disciplinary proceedings, we conclude on the information available to us at this time that:
(1) While Mr Quinlan's motives and actions were very evidently misguided, they were not corrupt. He did not know Mr Sheedy and there is no suggestion that what he did was motivated any prospect of personal gain or reward.
(2) His performance, in general, but in particular, in connection with the official-level inquiry, fell well short of the standards that can reasonably be expected of a person holding the position of County Registrar. In the circumstances it obstructed and misled the department's investigation and in our view amounted to misbehaviour on his part.