Representations are often made on behalf of accused persons in criminal cases. But not like this, writes Carol Coulter, Legal Affairs Correspondent
When a person faces sentencing in a criminal trial it is quite common for a letter from a public representative, employer or parish priest to be produced by the defence counsel and handed to the judge.
This will say that the accused person has, apart from the transgression in question, a generally good character, or is a good employee, or does great work for the parish, or some other kind of testimonial. It is questionable whether such testimonials generally play much part in the sentencing process. However, they are handed in to the defence counsel in open court, and there they are read out. The whole business is conducted publicly.
But what happened in yesterday's child rape case was very different and was a major departure from normal and quite proper contact between public representatives and the courts.
According to the statement from Mr Bobby Molloy, a close relative of the victim and the accused man approached him and asked him to inquire whether a letter she had written to the judge had been received. He agreed to do so and requested an official in his office to inquire from the judge's secretary whether the letter had been received. The judge himself took the query and quite properly rejected it.
In his statement yesterday Mr Molloy said: "I now fully accept that any inquiry relating to a case should have been made to the court registrar, as Mr Justice O'Sullivan pointed out today."
In fact, that would not have been the appropriate response either.
Judges do receive letters from individuals all the time, and they are usually dealt with by their registrars. Sometimes they are from prisoners arguing their innocence, or from individuals with complaints about the system.
But this was a letter from a close relative of a person accused of a serious crime, whose trial was ongoing. It can be assumed that the letter related to the merits of the case, either evidence relating to the alleged crimes or a testimonial on the behalf of the accused man.
As the trial was ongoing, any matter relating to it should have gone to the solicitor for the defence. Anything relating to a trial which is ongoing goes through either the prosecution or defence teams.
Referring to yesterday's case, a senior counsel specialising in crime said: "The solicitor for the defence should have asked the registrar if he had the letters on file. If the relative had evidence, she could have gone to the prosecution, offering a statement, or made herself available to the defence if it was evidence helpful to the accused. Even character witnesses go to the defence. Statements are brought by the defence solicitor into open court."
The author of the letters would not necessarily have known that it was inappropriate to attempt to contact the judge directly in a case which was ongoing.
But a public representative of 37 years' standing, and a minister in several governments, should have known. He should have told the woman to get her relative's solicitor to ask the registrar about the letters, or to send any relevant information directly to the solicitor for the defence.
If there was any doubt until recently about the right and wrong ways of dealing with the justice system, the months of discussion and analysis surrounding the Sheedy case should have burned into the mind of every public representative the protocols relating to dealing with judges and court cases.