I have to admit to being relieved over the last few weeks that I am no longer the Minister for Justice - I suspect all other former ministers for justice feel the same. The trial of the killers of Det Garda Jerry McCabe put the current incumbent in a near impossible position.
John O'Donoghue was faced with a court case, for the worst crime that can be committed, that had gone horribly wrong. And there was nothing he could do or could have done about it.
The testimony of Det Garda McCabe's partner, Ben O'Sullivan, was relayed to us through the measured tones of various court reporters. Even though the details were delivered calmly, they were no less breathtaking in their brutality. Perhaps the contrast between what had happened and the way we heard about it helped amplify the viciousness of the crime. Whatever the psychology following the opening few days of testimony, we all wanted those found guilty put away for as long as possible.
In order to find someone guilty of capital murder, or any other crime, the case needs to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Where murder is the charge, an element of premeditation must be evident. The prosecution had lined up witnesses it believed would provide that proof, but those witnesses decided not to stand by the statements they had given the gardai.
Increasingly, it became clear that the chances of getting a conviction for capital murder were getting slimmer. At this point the Director of Public Prosecutions was offered guilty pleas to manslaughter in return for the dropping of the murder charges. He accepted this option.
It was a Catch 22 scenario. By admitting they had been responsible for killing Det Garda McCabe, the defendants would avoid being convicted of murder. By continuing with the murder case there was the distinct possibility that the accused men would not be convicted.
While the legalities were treacherous enough, the ramifications of public reaction were appalling. By accepting the manslaughter charge, the DPP secured a conviction, while the public were told in no uncertain terms that these men admitted killing a garda. The other option, to seek a murder conviction, left the possibility that the men would not be convicted. Neither option would be acceptable to the people.
But the DPP's job is not to be swayed by public opinion. He is charged with following the most legally satisfactory course, which was to secure a safe conviction and get the killers into prison for as long a term as possible.
When news of the decision broke, the public seemed to make a false, if understandable assumption - that the Minister for Justice had a hand in making this choice. He didn't, he shouldn't and he couldn't. The office of the Director of Public Prosecutions was set up in 1974 with a specific goal in mind.
During his speech to the Dail the Minister quoted John Kelly, one of our most eminent constitutional lawyers, and the man charged with steering the DPP legislation through the Dail. Mr Kelly had stated that one of the primary aims of the Bill was "to ensure, as will be generally agreed to be desirable, that our system for the prosecution of offences should not only be impartial, but should be seen to be so, and that it should not only be free from outside influence, but should be seen to be so".
As part of the legislation which created the office the Minister is specifically precluded from attempting to influence the director's decisions. But at the same time the Minister is ultimately responsible for the rule of law in this State.
A similar situation applies in relation to the gardai. The Minister cannot interfere in their investigations but, in the final analysis, is responsible for their conduct. In this the Minister is in an almost unique position: he is responsible for the operation of bodies that must be independent.
Now while people might feel frustrated from time to time about decisions taken by the DPP, we should bear in mind that there is no such thing as a little independence - it either applies across the board or not at all. The DPP has said in public on a number of occasions that he would be prepared to explain publicly his decisions if a method could be found of doing this in a way which would not be prejudicial to the legitimate interests and rights of individuals. No one that I know has so far devised such a way.
The Minister must have been tempted to grab the proverbial "buck" as soon as it landed on his desk and attempt to shunt it back in the direction of the DPP. He didn't. And to understand why you really need to know John O'Donoghue. He's an unassuming Dail deputy and an archetypal country solicitor. He has had some fun poked at him for his lack of cosmopolitan sophistication. But he has never pretended to be a sophisticate or anything else that he isn't.
His decision to stand over the decision made by the DPP and to support the gardai when accusations were levelled in relation to the degree of protection offered to the trial witnesses, shows he has a clear understanding of the Minister's role. And he had the courage to put the importance of his job-above the considerations of public opinion.
A lesser man or woman would have done what they could to distance themselves from what was a deeply unpopular decision. Mr O'Donoghue's legal background helped particularly when it came to dealing with the witness protection issue. As he explained in the Dail, the gardai cannot provide any more protection for a witness than that witness is willing to accept. Those giving evidence at the trial were offered the protection of the gardai and whatever cover they agreed to was provided.
Further evidence of his commitment to the role came through another widely criticised decision. Following the trial he announced new legislation aimed at improving witness protection. He was accused of shutting the stable door after the horse had bolted. An easy accusation to make with the benefit of hindsight and an accusation that could be levelled at almost every piece of legislation passed by every minister for justice.
It simply is not possible to predict how criminals will act, or what new ways they will find to offend. In many cases the only option is to react as quickly as possible once a new threat makes itself clear.
John O'Donoghue had a second option open to him. He could have ignored the problem in the short term, ridden out the storm and waited to introduce new legislation, quietly, at a later date. But that would have been an abrogation of his responsibilities. Again he decided to take the opinion-poll damage rather than let a gap in our legislation exist for any longer than it need.