The findings of the report conducted by the Chief Justice, Mr Liam Hamilton, into the Philip Sheedy case have exceeded the expectations of most observers in their seriousness. They are so far-reaching that the individuals involved would seem to have no option but to consider their positions. Any other response, such as a legal challenge to Government disciplinary action, would serve only to further undermine public confidence in the judicial system. And it would probably not alter the eventual outcome.
The report did not recommend any sanctions arising from the six-week-long investigation, but only because the Chief Justice does not have the authority to do so. Apart from that limitation, the findings were as clear and as forthright as any government could have desired. They created a platform from which the Coalition Government could write with authority to Mr Justice Hugh O'Flaherty of the Supreme Court and Mr Justice Cyril Kelly of the High Court and point out the limited options open to them. In a parallel development, a report on the actions of court officials in the case will be presented to the Cabinet next Tuesday and Ministers will consider "if there are issues that may need to be considered by officials."
The controversy, which has sent tremors though the legal/judicial system, came to public attention last February when the Director of Public Prosecutions, Mr Eamon Barnes, successfully challenged a decision by Mr Justice Kelly to release Mr Sheedy from jail after he had served only one year of a four-year prison sentence. The penalty was imposed on Mr Sheedy in November, 1997, for the killing of mother of two, Mrs Anne Ryan, in a traffic accident while under the influence of alcohol. Neither the Garda nor the Chief State's Solicitor's Office had been advised that the case was to be heard. And, rather than precipitate a judicial review of the procedures that had led to his release, Mr Sheedy voluntarily surrendered himself to prison.
In his report on the case, the Chief Justice documented how - following representations from a member of Mr Sheedy's family - Mr Justice O'Flaherty had called the County Registrar, Mr Michael Quinlan, to his chambers and asked whether the Sheedy case might be re-listed for hearing. Mr Quinlan contacted Mr Sheedy's legal representative and advised him to apply for a review and set the case in motion. And the hearing came before Mr Justice Kelly.
Mr Justice Hamilton found that while Mr O'Flaherty's involvement in the case had arisen from a spirit of humanitarian interest, he was the one who had caused the case to be re-listed; his intervention was inappropriate and unwise and was damaging to the administration of justice. As for the actions of Mr Justice Kelly, he found he should not have entertained a review of a sentence imposed by a colleague and that he had failed to conduct the case in a manner befitting a judge. Furthermore, his actions had compromised the administration of justice.
It is a sorry catalogue of events. Its most corrosive effect will bear on public confidence in the impartial administration of justice. As the chairman of the Bar Council, Mr John McMenamin, said last night - it is incumbent on everyone involved to restore faith in the judicial system. Those at the centre of this saga must know themselves what that implies.