The actions of all officials in this case, bar one, were carried out in good faith in pursuance of what they saw as their duties, and therefore no case for disciplinary action arises, the Department of Justice report published yesterday says.
"In the case of the most senior official involved, however, we conclude that 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."
The report outlines the facts of the case in a way that differs little from that outlined by Mr Justice Hamilton. It concludes that following an approach by Mr Justice O'Flaherty of the Supreme Court, the Dublin Circuit Court County Registrar, Mr Michael Quinlan, contacted Mr Sheedy's solicitors and arranged for the listing of the Sheedy case for a hearing in which the balance of his four-year sentence for drunken driving causing death could be suspended.
Other officials were involved in the listing, but according to the report it is clear they merely took directions from Mr Quinlan. Some had realised that the way in which the relisting took place was unusual, but it was standard practice to follow the county registrar's instructions and they did not therefore act improperly.
The report is severe in its criticisms of Mr Quinlan's conduct in this case. "The County Registrar is the senior Circuit Court official in Dublin," the report says. "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."
It says that Mr Quinlan appears to have taken it as 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.
However, the report is less understanding of Mr Quinlan's approach to the Department of Justice inquiry. His approach "on the face of it amounted to misbehaviour", it says.
He had presented a "false and misleading" account in several letters of what had happened, due to the wrong judgment that protecting the "confidentiality" of his contact with Judge O'Flaherty took precedence over "his obligation to ensure that the Minister was in a position to give a factual account to Dail Eireann." He could have told the Department there were certain things he was not revealing because he was bound by confidentiality. "Instead he presented a false account."
On February 16th, early in the Department's inquiry, the Secretary-General of the Department, Mr Tim Dalton, rang Mr Quinlan asking if he could explain the circumstances in which the case was listed apparently without notice to the State.
Mr Quinlan responded on the same day in writing saying that Sheedy's original solicitor, Mr John Walsh, had made the request to him. He implied that this was why the sequence of events that led to the relisting was set in train. He made no mention of the fact that the case had been raised with him by Mr Justice O'Flaherty.
In response to a subsequent series of queries from the Secretary-General, Mr Quinlan continued to suggest that the impetus to have the case relisted came from Sheedy's solicitor. "Practitioners frequently seek my advice on the best approach to making unusual applications such as the one in this case," he elaborated.
A third letter in response to the Secretary-General was also written on the basis that Sheedy's legal team had initiated the process that led to the relisting. These letters were dated February 16th, February 26th and March 5th.
On April 1st Mr Quinlan's account changed. In a letter to the Minister for Justice he revealed that it was indeed Judge O'Flaherty who had first raised the case with him. He said that this is what prompted him to contact Sheedy's legal team and raise the possibility of having the case relisted.
He said that in his earlier letters to the Secretary-General he had been "protecting the confidence of Mr Justice O'Flaherty". He said he was sorry if his adherence to this principle of confidentiality had caused problems "but I am sure you can understand my difficulty".
The response of the Secretary-General, Mr Dalton, showed little sign of understanding his difficulty. The Minister, Mr Dalton wrote, "has asked me to say that he considers it most regrettable that you did not supply the information provided on 1st April much earlier given that the potential seriousness of the situation was both evident and stressed from the outset".
The report states that Mr Quinlan's actions were not corrupt, nor were they motivated by any prospect of personal gain or reward.
Nevertheless his actions "obstructed and misled the Department's investigation and in our view amounted to misbehaviour on his part".