Before proceeding I wish to state that while the Chair recognises that this matter of its nature involves persons outside the House who are clearly in the public domain being named in the House, I urge Members to show restraint when naming individuals and not to indulge in personalities or make serious allegations against any person under the privilege of this House. In addition, in view of its role under Article 35.4 of the Constitution, the House has a particular responsibility in avoiding undue critical comment on the actions of the then members of the Judiciary involved.
Resignation of Judges: Statements.
I have come here today, Sir, to perform a very difficult duty for which there is no precedent in this State.
Deputies will recall that on 1 April I provided the House with the information in my possession at that time concerning the circumstances surrounding the relisting of the case of DPP v. Sheedy which came before Mr. Justice Cyril Kelly in the Dublin Circuit Criminal Court on 12 November last.
There is no need to repeat the details I provided on that occasion but, in summary, I informed the House that rumours had been circulating about the circumstances leading up to the relisting of this case which suggested the possibility that there had been some form of impropriety involved; I became aware of these rumours, for the first time, when I received a phone call from the Attorney General, while I was on European Union business in Berlin on the evening of 10 February last; I decided that an immediate inquiry should be established, as a result of which the Attorney General contacted the Chief Justice who initiated inquiries; I instructed that the Garda authorities should be contacted and that official level inquiries into what happened should be commenced immediately by my Department; finally I said that I personally had no hand, act or part in the relisting of the Sheedy case.
The report of the Chief Justice was completed and presented to the Attorney General on 14 April. I received it from the Attorney General that afternoon and presented it to the Government at its meeting on Friday last, 16 April.
At its meeting, the Government decided, among other things, to make the report available immediately to the Joint Committee on Justice, Equality and Women's Rights. It decided also that letters should be addressed in the following terms to Mr. Justice Hugh O'Flaherty and Mr. Justice Cyril Kelly:
The Government decided at its meeting this morning to forward the report of the Chief Justice to the Oireachtas Committee on Justice, Equality and Women's Rights.
I have been asked to advise you that the Government will consider, at its meeting next Tuesday, proposing resolutions for the consideration of the two Houses of the Oireachtas, pursuant to Article 35.4.1º, for your removal, on the grounds that the facts admitted to the Chief Justice or established by him in his report, amount to misbehaviour within the meaning of the said provision of the Constitution.
In the meantime both judges have tendered their resignations from office. There are severance terms which I shall disclose to the House in the course of my statement. The Government is prepared to accept those terms and I will be commending them to the House.
Earlier today, a Cheann Comhairle, again with Government agreement, I transmitted the report on the inquiry carried out by my Depatment, which was finalised yesterday evening, to the Joint Committee already referred to. I will comment further on this report later in my statement. At this point, however, I wish to inform the House that the Dublin County Registrar, Mr. Michael Quinlan, to whom the report was supplied yesterday evening, has tendered his resignation with effect from today. There are severance terms in his case which I shall disclose and commend to the House in the course of my statement.
Before we say anything about those whose involvement in this tragic case has been the subject of widespread public attention in recent weeks, we should first remind ourselves that the primary victims in all that has taken place were the late Mrs. Anne Ryan, Mr. John Ryan and their family. Their pain has been greater than any other. Mr. Ryan and his young family have suffered a loss which can never be reversed. It is not in the least surprising that the circumstances leading to the release of the man who was convicted of the traffic offences which caused Mrs. Ryan's death would have caused the family concern and distress. It is not in the least surprising either that it has given rise to great public disquiet.
The duty I must perform today is a difficult one. I have known Mr. Justice Hugh O'Flaherty for many years. The three men whose careers have now ended are known to many Deputies. They are men whose professionalism over many years has been respected. Moreover, in the opinion of the Chief Justice, the actions of one judge damaged the administration of justice. In the other case, the judge's actions compromised the administration of justice. The actions of the County Registrar fell well short of expected standards. These are serious charges. The Government had to act and it has done so.
Before I outline the severance terms, I wish to offer some observations about the approach we should adopt in conducting this debate. We must not allow extraneous or unworthy considerations to cloud our judgment. We have heard suggestions in recent days to the effect that politicians and others have been under scrutiny and subject to criticism by the Judiciary over the years and that it is now the turn of the politicians to have their say. Considerations of this kind have no place in this debate. If we allowed such considerations to come into play, it would amount not only to an injustice but would sully our standing as public representatives.
It has been in the best tradition of the Judiciary since the foundation of the State to proceed fairly and objectively. They have served the State well in doing so. When it comes to our turn to consider the cases we are discussing today, we are duty and conscience bound to maintain the same high standards.
I will refer now to the severance terms to which, as I said, the Government has signalled its agreement. Mr. Justice Hugh O'Flaherty, now aged 61, has nine years service as a judge of the Supreme Court. The pension and gratuity to which he would be entitled at about age 67, based on his existing service, would be on pension just over £26,000 and on gratuity just over £79,000. Mr. Justice Cyril Kelly, now aged 50, has almost seven years service as a judge of the Circuit Court and five months as a judge of the High Court. The pension and gratuity to which he would be entitled at age 65, based on his existing service, would be on pension just over £17,000 and on gratuity just over £51,000. Mr. Michael Quinlan, now aged 45, has over seven years service as County Registrar. The pension and gratuity to which he would be entitled at age 65, based on his existing service, would be on pension just over £11,500 and on gratuity just over £34,700. I emphasise that these sums are entitlements and it is estab lished that they are not entitlements which stand forfeited by virtue of what has taken place.
The Government has considered the question of severance payments in all three cases carefully. It has taken account of the fact that all three men have tendered their resignations, which was the right and honourable course for them to take and, in the case of the two judges, avoided the need for a procedure in the House which would have been without precedent. The impeachment procedure had the potential to cause the most serious damage to maintaining the greatly important doctrine of the separation of powers in this jurisdiction. There is no suggestion that any of the three were motivated by any prospect of achieving personal gain or reward.
The Government has concluded that pensions should be payable in each case, commencing now, but, having regard to this, that no gratuities should be paid. The pensions to which the Government is prepared to agree are in the case of Mr. Justice Hugh O'Flaherty, £40,000 per annum; in the case of Mr. Justice Cyril Kelly, £30,000 per annum, and in the in case of Mr. Michael Quinlan, £15,000 per annum. These pensions would fall to be adjusted, in the normal manner, in line with those of other retired judges and County Registrars.
In assessing the merits of making these payments, Deputies may wish to know what the loss of office has meant in financial terms to each of the men concerned. It is not easy to be precise, but assuming the two judges had retired at age 70 – the maximum retirement age for Mr. Justice O'Flaherty is 72 and for Mr. Justice Kelly it is 70 – and the County Registrar at age 65 – the maximum retirement age is 70 – the loss in gross earnings at current levels up to retirement would have been in the case of Mr. Justice Hugh O'Flaherty of the order of £0.5 million; in the case of Mr. Justice Cyril Kelly of the order of £1.1 million and in the case of Mr. Michael Quinlan of the order of £0.8 million.
There would also be an additional loss, subsequent to retirement, by virtue of the fact that their pension payments would be much lower than they would be otherwise. While it can be said that the loss of office may open up the prospect of alternative careers and earnings from other sources, it is nevertheless the case that the financial losses arising from their resignations are substantial. I commend the pension payments I have outlined to the House.
I wish to refer to the final part of the report prepared by my Department, which is entitled "Avoiding a Repetition". This contains a number of far reaching recommendations for change, the fundamental purpose of which is to restore confidence in the judicial system which many people will consider to have been damaged by recent events. The recommendations deal with issues such as the performance of duties by court staff; judicial conduct and ethics; the review of sentences and the establishment of a parole board; the method of appointment of County Registrars; the method of listing of court cases; the assignment of cases to particular judges; court rules; plea negotiations and the formal transfer of responsibility for the administration of the courts service to the new courts board.
I do not propose to discuss these recommendations in detail today and I believe that Deputies will require time to study them. The report has been referred this afternoon to the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Justice, Equality and Women's Rights for detailed consideration. My officials and I will be available to assist the committee in its consideration of the report. I understand that in its preliminary examination earlier today committee members expressed the view that the recommendations were far reaching. However, my preliminary reaction is that they are far reaching, comprehensive and positive.
At its meeting today the Government considered them and agreed that it will discuss them again shortly to ensure that all necessary measures are identified and taken to prevent this ever happening again. I will listen to what Deputies have to say about the recommendations or any other recommendations they may wish to advance.
As a doctrine the separation of powers has tended to focus exclusively on its application to judicial independence. Perhaps this is because such discussion that has taken place has been in court precincts. Other principles related to that doctrine are mentioned rarely but deserve some reference in this debate. I refer to the supremacy of the Constitution and the role and responsibilities of the Government and Oireachtas as servants of the Constitution and the people. As we learn at times like this, in the words of James Madison one of the fathers of the US Constitution, "We must perceive that the legislative, executive and judiciary departments are by no means totally separate and distinct from each other".
This does not mean that the concept of independence in the discharge of the respective functions stands compromised but is simply a recognition of the reality that each of the powers of the State overlaps to some degree with the other powers. This is why the Government appoints judges and the Legislature can make laws that bind them and can remove them from office for stated misbehaviour. It does not mean, however, that in the discharge of their purely judicial task of interpreting and applying the law in individual cases, either the Government or anyone else can intervene.
This is the system of checks and balances which preserve our liberties and we should be profoundly grateful that they are in place whatever the frequency with which they are invoked. The doctrine of separation of powers is in place in our Constitution to preclude the exercise of arbitrary power and to prevent injustice.
It was not found necessary by the Government to invoke the power of the Oireachtas in relation to the removal of two judges this week but the power was, and is, there if needed. This is one of the benefits of our Constitution which is turning out to be, in the words used to me on one occasion by the late Brian Lenihan, "a rather robust document".
We have been extraordinarily well served by our courts system.
Down the years our judges and court staff at all levels have given great service to the nation. That tradition of service is reflected well in the judicial oath taken by all judges:
In the presence of Almighty God, I do solemnly and sincerely promise and declare that I will duly and faithfully and to the best of my knowledge and power execute the office of Judge without fear or favour, affection or ill-will towards any man, and I will uphold the Constitution and the laws. May God direct and sustain me.
That oath has been followed by all judges and is their guiding principle – as it must be if we are to have the justice system our Constitution envisaged and our people expect.
The Government is determined that the lessons we have learnt from recent events will be fully taken on board and that confidence in the judicial system, which is vital to the proper functioning of democracy and which has existed since the foundation of the State, will be fully restored.
I am also determined, as is every Deputy in this House, that in the interests of the public we serve we will not have to go through events like those of recent days again.
I propose to share my time with Deputy Owen.
Last Sunday the Minister went on radio and television holding up the Sheedy case as proof positive that the constitutional mechanism of checks and balances had worked in this instance. He has again alluded to that today. The reality is that the mechanism did not work. The system did not bring it about. It was chance recognition on the part of a relative of the late Mrs. Anne Ryan that set in train a chain of events and a series of inquiries involving the Garda and the Director of Public Prosecutions that set the present process in motion.
It was the DPP taking the case for judicial review to the High Court that brought the matter to public attention. It was the media publicity surrounding the judicial review in the High Court and the mysterious voluntary return of Sheedy to Mountjoy Prison which gave rise to the obvious questions surrounding the case. It was the raising of this case in this Chamber by Deputy Howlin and by me three weeks ago that gave this case impetus and urgency. It was only at that stage that the Chief Justice was asked to undertake his investigation and to prepare a report. It was not the constitutional system of checks and balances but the fortuitous sighting of the defendant that brought this about. Philip Sheedy was already a free man from 12 November 1998 until 25 March 1999. Had he been living in Mayo, for example, instead of Dublin, in all probability he would never have been seen, he would still be at large and the bizarre circumstances surrounding his release would never have come to public attention.
The final paragraph in the conclusions of the report of the Chief Justice in respect of the performance of Mr. Justice Hugh O'Flaherty says it all:
I conclude that Mr. Justice Hugh O'Flaherty's intervention was inappropriate and unwise, that it left his motives and action open to misinterpretation and that it was therefore damaging to the administration of justice.
I commend Mr. Justice Hugh O'Flaherty for doing the honourable thing and for resigning. It was the proper course of action. I believe his position was untenable. Once a judge is deemed, by a person holding the status of the office of Chief Justice, to have, by his actions, damaged the administration of justice, it would be impossible for him to continue in office. While Mr. Justice O'Flaherty continued to assert that he had done nothing wrong, it was a view clearly not shared by the Chief Justice. The fundamental principle of the equality of all citizens before the law goes to the very heart of judicial performance and even the appearance of improper interference cannot be countenanced in a democracy.
On 30 March, when I first raised this issue by way of an Adjournment Debate, I stated in my speech: "This is an issue of sufficient gravity that unless a satisfactory explanation is forthcoming, we may have to seek to invoke Article 35.4.1 of the Constitution.". It was not said with any degree of appetite. It was not a prospect that one would particularly relish. However it was put into the Constitution for a specific purpose – to enable the Oireachtas to remove a judge for "stated misbehaviour or incapacity".
From the outset of this case coming to my attention, I have questioned the handling of the case by Mr. Justice Kelly. I questioned his right to hear the review of sentence case, the non-notification and non-appearance in court of the DPP's Office or the Garda and the setting aside of three years of the four year sentence.
While it was obvious that the case had been badly handled, even our worst suspicions could not have prepared us for the damning denunciation by the Chief Justice of the handling of the case by Mr. Justice Kelly. We thank the Chief Justice for the clarity of his language and conclusions.
The case should not have been heard by Mr. Justice Kelly but should have gone to the Court of Criminal Appeal or have been dealt with by way of judicial review to the High Court. The judge was allegedly concerned about Sheedy's mental condition "at the moment". Yet the only two medical reports Mr. Justice Kelly had on file were 35 months and 19 months out date, respectively. "I take the view", said the Chief Justice, "that Judge Kelly should not, in the circumstances, have entered on a review of sentence imposed by one of his colleagues. I conclude, moreover, that having entered on a review, he failed to conduct the case in a manner befitting a judge. In these circumstances, I conclude that Judge Kelly's handling of this matter compromised the administration of justice". Clearly the Oireachtas was left with no option but to invoke Article 35 had Mr. Justice Kelly not belatedly resigned from office.
We do not know why Mr. Justice Kelly did what he did. Why did he suggest originally to Judge Matthews that it was a case that merited a suspended sentence when his judicial track record was one of tough sentencing? Why did Mr. Justice Kelly hear the case on 12 November 1998 knowing, as he must have done, that he was not empowered to do so? Why did he pretend to the court that there was an up-to-date psychological report when clearly this was not so? Why did Mr. Justice Kelly request that counsel for the defence, some time after the court case, obtain an up-to-date psychological/psychiatric report with a view to having this added to his file? Why was the case jumped from number 19 on the list to number 1? Why did the judge not query the fact that the DPP and the Garda were not in court? Why did the judge, as is evident from the court transcript, effectively take over the running of the case, concluding it in approximately 90 seconds? What particular interest had Mr. Justice Kelly in the Sheedy case to compel him to go to such extraordinary extremes and to depart so seriously from precedent and established procedure?
In my contribution in the Dáil on this issue on 1 April last, I pointed to the central issues surrounding this controversy when I dwelt on and asked questions about the wrongful listing of the case before Mr. Justice Kelly on 12 November. This is the central focus of the report which has just come to hand and which was the subject of inquiries by officials of the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform. The appendices to the report of the Chief Justice point up major conflicts and contradictions in the versions of the various officials involved. What is acknowledged is that the case was listed by Mr. Brendan O'Donnell of the Circuit Court office, acting on the instructions of Mr. Michael Quinlan, County Registrar. What has not been resolved are the serious allegations made by Mr. Brian McGreary, Law Clerk in the Chief State Solicitor's office, in the memorandum for file dated 9 February 1999 and listed under Annex 12. The allegations contained in the memorandum are extremely serious and should be investigated further.
When Opposition spokesman on Justice, the Minister repeatedly pointed out to his predecessor in this House that the Minister for Justice is responsible for the administration of the courts. The copy of the letter of 6 April 1998 from the Chief State Solicitor to the Attorney General is intriguing in many ways – this is an annex to the report of the Chief Justice. We are now in the middle of a major judicial and constitutional controversy. One would expect, as should be the norm, that there would be meticulous attention to detail, yet the letter from the Chief State Solicitor is wrongly dated; it should be 6 April 1999, not 6 April 1998. On the first page of the letter the date for the review of sentence is given as 12 November 1998 but on the second page it is given as 20 November. The letter goes on to state: "I have been unable to establish whether or not it was listed out of sequence". That is extraordinary. This case did not happen in the dim and distant past but a mere five months ago. Surely there are records of the way the cases were listed and how they were called. Were these records sought? Were they checked? The Chief State Solicitor's letter goes on to state: "Mr. Browne was unaware that the review of the case was vacated". How could that be the position? Surely the fact that the right of sentence review had been vacated in November 1997 would be clearly indicated on the file.
Another incredible aspect of this matter is the description in the Chief State Solicitor's letter of what actually happened in the court on 12 November 1998. The letter states: "This Office had assigned Ms Eileen Creedon, Senior Assistant Solicitor (who had that week taken over as Section Head of the Criminal Trials Section of the Office) and Mr. Stephen Browne, Legal Clerk, to appear in Court 24 on 12th November 1998". The letter goes on to state:
Ms Creedon was called out of court to answer the telephone. While Ms Creedon was absent at the telephone, item number 19 (the Sheedy case) was called by Judge Kelly.
One accepts that Mr. Browne did not have the right of audience in court but why did Mr. Browne not immediately fetch Ms Creedon so that the State's interests would be represented in court? We are told in the Chief State Solicitor's letter that Mr. Browne's recollection of the matter being vacated is "quite hazy", yet in the next sentence we are told that "Mr. Browne believed the case would be removed from the list".
This is clearly an administrative issue and it is an issue for the Minister. There is incredible slovenliness and inconsistency in the State's handling of this matter. Undoubtedly there were major judicial misdemeanours but there was clear negligence and laxity on the part of the State. That was a major contributory factor to this debacle. Had the Chief State Solicitor's office been up to speed, Mr. Justice Kelly might have been thwarted in his patent mishandling of this case.
This whole saga is undoubtedly a watershed. A Supreme Court judge and a High Court judge are gone from the Bench. While much has been said and written about the damage done to the central pillar of our Constitution and democracy, it is far better that it be confronted than concealed. The judicial system will be improved, enhanced and invigorated and will be the better for it. Nobody expects infallibility but we are entitled to be assured in respect of standards. We are now into an era of accountability when everybody, no matter at what level, is accountable to somebody.
The Hamilton report shows clearly that the Judiciary has the capacity to be incisively and piercingly self-critical. In the final paragraph of his report, the Chief Justice states: "I must, and do, emphasise that I, as Chief Justice, have no jurisdiction, whether under the provisions of the Constitution or any Act passed by the Oireachtas, to make recommendations arising out of the facts in this case and I do not, for this reason, propose to do so".
It has been clear for some considerable period that when it comes to discipline for judges, there is a glaring anomaly which has not been addressed. It is literally a case of all or nothing. The only procedure for dealing with stated misdemeanour or incapacity is the impeachment process contained in Article 35.4.1 of the Constitution. It has been recommended on more than one occasion that the obvious need for a range of sanctions to deal with situations of varying degrees should be addressed. The constitutional review body, chaired by Dr. T. K. Whitaker, dealt at length with the issue of judicial independence. It stated: "While the Review Group is of the opinion that such ‘disciplinary' provisions short of impeachment as at present applied to the District Court are probably not inconsistent with Article 35.2 or otherwise unconstitutional, lest there be any doubt in the matter, Article 35.2 should be amended to allow for regulation by the Judges themselves of judicial conduct, in accordance with the doctrine on the separation of powers".
A possible vehicle could be the board of the Courts Service or a modified version of the board of the Courts Service which, while having somewhat of a legal overload, has nonetheless a nominee of the Minister to represent consumers of the services provided by the courts, a person nominated by the Irish Congress of Trade Unions and a person who has relevant knowledge of experience in commerce, finance or administration. It is clear this issue can no longer be postponed and will be a central element in restoring public confidence in the judicial process.
I welcome the report of the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform which we received this afternoon. It follows the same high standard as that set by the report of the Chief Justice; it is delivered in clear, unadorned language. However, I strongly dispute paragraph 1.3 which states, in relation to inquiries carried out into the role of the Chief State Solicitor's office, as follows: "It is not a matter for the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, nor for his Department, to offer any observations one way or the other on the handling of the case generally by that office". Who will answer in relation to the performance of the Chief State Solicitor if the Minister will not answer? It is my understanding that it was the responsibility of the Chief Justice to inquire into actions involving members of the Judiciary and the clear responsibility of the Minister's Department officials to deal with the actions of officials at any level under the aegis of his Department.
On a point of order, the Chief State Solicitor's officials do not come within the remit of the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform.
I appreciate that. They come under the remit of the Taoiseach—
That is not what the Deputy said.
—but the Minister's officials were assigned to carry out this investigation and they have not done so in relation to this office. The Minister is clearly shirking his responsibility and we will not permit him to do so.
The report and its contents clearly are the reason the County Registrar has seen it as his responsibility to resign from office. It is clear that the County Registrar's role in the entire affair was central and influential. The report also acknowledges, however, that there are many questions as to what happened in this case to which we do not have the answers at this time. Essentially this remains the problem. Many questions remain as to the motivation behind the entire handling of this affair from its beginning to its conclusion, and we must continue to pursue these issues. The Department's report contains many worthwhile recommendations in relation to various areas of court administration, including the appointment of senior officials. All of these will have to be considered in due course.
On a personal level one has to have sympathy with the individuals involved. Ultimately, however, the cold, clinical integrity of the Constitution has to take precedence over personal considerations and the most exacting standards must apply. The course of justice was clearly perverted in this case. It was perverted and undermined by people at a very senior level, judicially and administratively. This must never happen again.
On Wednesday, 31 March 1999, when taking the Order of Business I made comments in this House which implied that the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Deputy O'Donoghue, might have had an improper personal involvement with particular reference to the promotion of one of the judges involved in the Sheedy case. I withdraw any inferences made or taken from my comments that the Minister might have known about the Sheedy case before he recommended a person for judicial appointment to the Government. I fully accept the Minister's statement made the next day, 1 April, that the first he knew about this case was on 10 February 1999 when he was informed by the Attorney General. Although the Minister was not present on 31 March to hear my comments I have no hesitation in apologising unequivocally to him for this incorrect inference.
I would like to turn to the circumstances now facing us as a result of Mr. Justice Hamilton's report and the report we received this afternoon which, unfortunately, I have not had time to read. One issue must remain to the fore during this debate. On 14 March 1996 Anne Ryan was, like many other housewives and mothers, going about her business dealing with her family and her home. By 15 March 1996 she was taken from her faimly in the most appalling circumstances and her husband and children were injured. John Ryan, his children and Anne Ryan's extended family are innocent victims in this saga. Philip Sheedy and his family must also be suffering but Mr. Sheedy was responsible for his actions and had to the face the consequences. There are other victims in this tragic case.
Mr. Justice Hamilton's report, which I commend for its thoroughness in obtaining statements from all relevant people, does not answer all the questions that remain about the handling of the Sheedy case. The report we received today may answer some of these questions. On 11 February 1999 the Attorney General was advised by the Minister to speak to the Chief Justice about carrying out an investigation. Why did the Minister not seek to have that report completed more speedily? The Minister has responsibility for ensuring that the investigation into such a grave matter should have been carried out more speedily. If that had been the case, the Opposition would not have had to make so many demands for answers.
Why did Minister of State, Deputy Fahey, not have more information to give the Dáil on 30 March 1999 – seven weeks after the commencement of the inquiry? Why did it take the Minister six days to contact the county registrar and a further 55 days to complete the report on the role of his staff? Why did he allow 28 days to elapse before seeking a reply from the Chief State Solicitor's office to a letter dated 3 March 1999? The Minister will recall from his time in Opposition how diligent he was in demanding speedy and immediate answers to any controversy that arose. He is to be criticised for not practising such speed in this inquiry.
The appendices attached to Mr. Justice Hamilton's report include a number of contradictory statements and unanswered questions. Mr. Justice Hamilton did not make a judgment on a number of these contradictory statements but appears to have drawn certain conclusions from them. Have the Minister or the Government formed an opinion as to who to believe in the various contradictory statements?
For example, the statement by Mr. Brian McGreary in annex 12 relates to a meeting he had with Mr. Luigi Rea, BL, outside the Law Library on 3 February 1999. The reference is graphic in its detail about the personnel involved in getting Philip Sheedy's case listed. Mr. Rea differs in his recollection of this conversation, but if Mr. McGreary is to be believed we need to know how many people were aware of the involvement of at least two judges in the case, when they knew this and what effect it had on any discussions or decisions that might have been taken as a result of that knowledge?
There are other questions which I want to raise and I hope the Minister will answer them today. On the one o'clock news former Judge Kelly stated that he had been requested by the Executive to offer his resignation. The Minister read the letter into the record of the House. Is that the full letter? Can the Minister give the exact contents of the letters written to the two judges and were they worded as indicated by Mr. Kelly on the one o'clock news?
By what authority did the Government ask for the resignation given that it is a matter for the President to appoint judges to the High Court and the Supreme Court? I am not challenging the Minister but I wish to know if he has given the House the full content of the letter sent to the two judges. Former Judge Kelly seemed to give a different interpretation.
Former Judge Kelly indicated that it was his practice to read the files before making his judgment to suspend the remaining three years of Mr. Sheedy's sentence. Can the Minister tell the House if a request was made to the Chief State Solicitor's office to have the full file available in the court on 12 November? If such a request was made would this not have been an indication to the Chief State Solicitor's office that the case was coming up and that the DPP should have been informed so that a representative could be present?
If the file was not requested from the Chief State Solicitor's office can the Minister tell us when the file would have been available to the judge before he reached his decision? Did the judge make his decision relying on memory of the file which he had seen at some time in 1997?
The handling and outcome of this case by some but not all involved has been disastrous from the start. It has undermined people's faith in the judicial system and strengthened the feeling that there is one law for the rich and one for the poor. Many people have suffered, some innocently, and more have suffered because of their own actions. It must be a painful and difficult time for the families of the three people at the centre of this controversy who had to face the ultimate sanction for their actions.
The credibility of the judicial system is paramount in a democracy and the House should make no apology for raising the serious implications of this case so that confidence can be restored and the people can be satisfied that our judicial system is equal to all who seek justice.
A number of people have suffered significantly as a result of this bizarre and, as yet, not fully explained affair. Careers have been lost, reputations damaged, incomes decreased and families put under stress. However, we must never lose sight of the fact that Anne Ryan's family has suffered the most and endured the greatest loss.
The events which caused an earthquake in our legal and judicial system have their origins in what would have been a normal domestic outing for many families. A young mother, Anne Ryan, her husband John and their two small children were returning from a family swim in Tallaght. A new car, driven in a reckless manner by a young man with more than the legally permitted level of alcohol in his blood flew across a roundabout and struck the Ryans' car in a manner which a witness likened to a missile.
The result was a young woman was taken in the prime of her life, a husband seriously injured and deprived, in all probability, of the chance of ever working again. Two young children were robbed of the care and affection of their mother. This family was left to mourn alone with no visits from the great and the good and little media interest in the death.
The Ryan family had an expectation that the State would see that justice was done and that the person responsible for Anne Ryan's death would be brought to account and dealt with in a fitting manner by our courts system. Nothing could compensate the Ryan family for their loss but they must have drawn some comfort when the court case was completed and the sentence imposed.
Imagine the additional anguish that must have been caused to John Ryan and his family when they were informed by a third party that the person convicted in connection with Anne Ryan's death was free and back at work within a year of his conviction. John Ryan showed great courage in beginning to ask questions and demand explanations as to how this happened. Had he not done so we would never have learned of the extraordinary events outlined in the report of Mr. Justice Hamilton published last week. There are no checks and balances which would have exposed the sequence of events had Mr. Ryan and his family not been so diligent.
The resignations of Mr. Justice O'Flaherty and Mr. Justice Kelly were inevitable given the damning conclusions of the Chief Justice's report. It was difficult to see how Mr. Justice O'Flaherty could continue to sit on the Supreme Court, the highest court in the land, with the Chief Justice who had concluded that Mr. Justice O'Flaherty's actions "were damaging to the administration of justice". Similarly, it was impossible to see how Mr. Justice Kelly could possibly continue in office given the conclusion that "he failed to conduct the [Sheedy] case in a manner befitting a judge" and that his actions "compromised the administration of justice".
Thanks to Mr. Justice Hamilton's report we now know the basic sequence of events. We know the how, the when and the where. However, we still do not know the why. I do not believe the matter can be considered closed until we know why those involved acted in the manner they did and it is incumbent on the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform and the Government to come up with clear and practical proposals as to how that knowledge can be obtained. It is not acceptable to close the book on these events, accept that three distinguished public servants have ended their careers and simply move on to new business. The public wants answers to the outstanding questions, particularly with regard to why those centrally involved in this case took the actions they did.
The departmental report which Members received earlier today states in paragraph 1.5:
We have been able to reach certain conclusions, however, in relation to the central issues we examined and we believe that one of these is so serious that an immediate Report must be made, even if it is the case that the Report, taken as a whole, leaves questions unanswered that will, no doubt, be raised in the period ahead.
It is clear that the authors of the report, the senior officials in the Department, regard this as an interim report that had to be made on the basis of the seriousness of the central contentions involved and that there are further serious and significant questions yet to be answered.
The Chief Justice made it clear that in drawing his conclusions he was relying on uncontested facts. However, there are many contested issues and disputed versions of events contained in the appendices to his report. These, also, require full explanation. Indeed, the extent to which distinguished judges, lawyers and court officials disagree on such basic issues as whether meetings took place and who said what to whom is quite astonishing. There are also legitimate questions to be answered by the Minister about the delay in acting when these matters were brought to his attention and about a certain tardiness in bringing the knowledge he had to the attention of the Dáil, which is his constitutional duty. The role of the Minister is clear. He is elected by the Members of this House, is accountable to it and he is required to bring information to the House when it is sought by the Members.
We heard a great deal from the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform about compassion in this case. Where was the Minister's compassion when, on 15 February, my colleague, Deputy Rabbitte, wrote to him setting out the essence of the case and requesting that
you would direct whomsoever is appropriate in your Department to let me know on behalf of the Ryan family what is the official position in respect of this matter.
Mr. John Ryan telephoned Deputy Rabbitte's office on Friday, 12 February, and faxed a copy of his, Mr. Ryan's, letter of 11 February to Deputy Rabbitte. The Deputy met Mr. Ryan on Monday, 15 February, after which he communicated that same day with the Minister. The Minister's office sent the usual perfunctory acknowledgement on 17 February promising that "a further letter will be addressed to you in this matter in the near future".
Despite reminders, the Minister did not respond and eventually, on 12 March, Deputy Rabbitte contacted the Office of the Chief State Solicitor directly. In stark contrast to the response received from the Minister and his office, the Chief State Solicitor was most helpful. Having spoken to Deputy Rabbitte on the telephone, he then wrote to Deputy Rabbitte on 19 March, a letter which Deputy Rabbitte passed on to Mr. Ryan.
Deputy Hayes got it as well.
The content of the letter was enlightening in light of the facts we now know. The letter was a comfort for the Ryans. They would be waiting for comfort if they expected it to be provided by the Minister or his office.
The Attorney General contacted the Minister about the case on 10 February. Mr. Ryan wrote to the Minister on 11 February and Deputy Rabbitte wrote to the Minister on 15 February. The very least that can be said is that no urgency attached to the Minister's inquiries until the matter became the focus of media, public and political attention.
There is also the question of why, when the matter was raised on the Adjournment by myself and Deputy Jim Higgins on 30 March, the Minister of State, Deputy Fahey, was sent to House to deliver a script that contained nothing more than a restatement of the basic sequence of events and contained no information that was not already in the public domain. His response was flimsy and inadequate and, in light of the information that was in the possession of the Department and the Minister, a contempt for this House and the Deputies who sought information, as was their right. Two days later, the Minister made a statement to the Dáil which contained quite a lot of information, much of which, it was clear, had been available to the Department at the time the Minister of State made his statement.
The Minister is constitutionally responsible to this House. He has no right to drip feed information to it. If he could not be present on 30 March, as was understandable, the Minister of State representing him should have outlined the full facts as were known and as were requested by Opposition Deputies.
It is clear that the failure of the Minister, Deputy O'Donoghue, to deal with the matter as promptly as he could have, particularly when it was drawn to his attention by Deputy Rabbitte, and the failure to provide available information to the Dáil when the Minister of State replied to the Adjournment Debate on 30 March simply added to the climate of suspicion and doubt surrounding the affair at that time.
The Minister spoke earlier about the role of this House and the Ceann Comhairle, opening the debate, spoke about the restrictions which applied to Members. We have allowed many restrictions to be established by convention which circumscribe how Members deal with matters. It is time the House stopped allowing itself to be constantly circumscribed. Members of the House have constitutional duties to perform on behalf of the people who elect us and we are accountable for them. The role of the Oireachtas should be extended and expanded in the democratic interest, not further circumscribed and restricted.
The Judiciary is a key pillar of our democratic system. It has generally served the country well and, as a group, has acted in a courageous and independent manner on many occasions. Many basic civil rights have been won through courageous decisions taken by the Judiciary, not by the determination of the Oireachtas. The resignations of Mr. Justice O'Flaherty and Mr. Justice Kelly have averted further damage to this important institution but it would be a mistake to bury our heads in the sand and to ignore the fact that confidence in the judicial system has been severely dented by the events of recent weeks. Failure to deal with the remaining unanswered questions will further erode public confidence.
The Judiciary plays an increasingly central role in society. There was a significant increase in the number of High Court and Circuit Court judges appointed by this and the previous Government. High Court judges have been called on to carry out difficult and onerous work in various tribunals of inquiry. Citizens resort to the courts to seek justice or to secure compensation far more frequently now than ten, 15 or 20 years ago.
The principle of the separation of the judicial and Government systems is central to our democracy, as is the crucial independence of the courts. However, the constitutional framework governing the relationship between the Executive and the courts which may have been appropriate in the 1930s may not be adequate in the changed legal environment which operates as we approach the 21st century.
It is an absolute requirement that there should be no interference by the Government or the Oireachtas in the judicial process. However, it is not satisfactory that there should be no point of appeal when the conduct of a judge is called into question or that there would not be a system for investigating bona fide complaints. It is particularly unacceptable that the only sanction available against a judge is the procedure for impeachment by the Oireachtas set out in Article 35.4.1 of the Constitution.
In this regard, I want to ask the Minister why the report of the working group on a courts commission, chaired by Mrs. Justice Susan Denham and dealing with judicial conduct and ethics, which was submitted to the Government on 28 November last has yet to be published. Its recommendations have taken on an added importance in the light of the current controversy.
We need to look at systems which operate in other jurisdictions, particularly those which share common legal principles with us, and draw upon their experiences. The Canadian procedure which allows the president of each court to exercise a disciplinary function and which provides for an independent committee in respect of the highest court could be a practical and valuable example for us to follow.
I have accepted from the outset that there was nothing to suggest direct ministerial involvement in any of the events which led to the release of Mr. Sheedy but that does not absolve the Minister of overall responsibility for ensuring that the administration of justice is carried out in a fair way and that the public has confidence in the fairness and impartiality of the courts.
The Minister's response to today's debate was wholly inadequate. The bulk of his statement was taken up with financial aspects, working out in actuarial terms what the principals involved might have earned had they continued in their present positions. The putative future earnings of any of these gentlemen is of little relevance or consequence. I do not begrudge fair play to anyone. Notwithstanding the conclusions reached by the Chief Justice, it is clearly appropriate that adequate pension provisions should be made for the judges who have resigned. However, I suspect that more than one taxpayer will raise their eyebrows at the fact that if Mr. Justice Cyril Kelly were 65 years of age today, his pension entitlement would be £17,000 per year but that, as a result of mishandling a case, he will receive an immediate pension of £30,000 per year.
Before concluding his speech, the Minister said that he wanted to make a brief comment on avoiding repetition. Ensuring that there will never be a repetition of this case should have formed the meat and substance of his presentation. The principle that all people, regardless of political or social background, should be treated equally before the courts is one that must be cherished and defended. That is the primary duty of the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform and the Oireachtas. Considerable work remains to be done before all the facts of this case are known fully and before public confidence in the administration of justice in this country is restored.
That concludes statements. We now move on to 30 minutes of questions, to conclude not later than 6.57 p.m. In accordance with the order of the day, spokespersons for the three main parties were allowed to make statements.
Is the Leas-Cheann Comhairle indicating that other Deputies will not be allowed to ask questions?
No; they were not allowed to make statements.
People who have appeared before the courts of former Mr. Justice O'Flaherty and Mr. Justice Kelly now find themselves on the horns of a dilemma. How many undelivered judgments exist in the case of former Mr. Justice Kelly and former Mr. Justice O'Flaherty in his capacity both as a Supreme Court judge and an ex officio member of the High Court? If cases must be reheard, will the Minister give the House an assurance that the costs involved will not be visited on the unfortunate litigants who are the victims of this situation?
Investigations to date in the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform indicate that two cases which were before Mr. Justice Kelly, involving a civil action and extradition, will need to be reheard. In the case of Mr. Justice O'Flaherty, we are not yet certain of the precise number of cases involved. We hope to complete our examination of that matter in the near future. With regard to the costs involved, the Department will consider carefully and sympathetically the costs which arise for litigants whose cases have to be reheard.
I have three related questions. On the basis that the reports of the Chief Justice and the Department acknowledge that their conclusions are based solely on uncontested facts and given that issues of disputed fact remain, giving rise to widespread public and media speculation on the motives involved, will the Minister indicate the measures he intends to take to resolve the remaining issues? Does he agree the reputation of the judiciary and confidence in the administration of justice will not be fully restored until the public understands what has taken place and the motivation behind it? What is the Minister's interpretation of paragraph 1.5 of the Department's report which I quoted in my contribution? Does the Minister share the view that it is merely an interim report and how does he intend to follow through on the matter?
It is true that there are disputed facts – there can be no question about this. It must be clear to everybody that a tribunal of inquiry is necessary if the disputed facts are to be resolved. Contrary to what Deputies have stated, I submit that far from being lethargic, this inquiry was extremely expeditious and comprehensive on every front. It must be recalled that judicial review proceedings were initiated on 22 February and did not terminate until 25 March. The Chief Justice makes it clear in his report that it would have been wrong for him to proceed with a full-scale inquiry during while these proceedings were pending. This was for a very good reason, namely, that it was quite possible there might be an appeal to him. In the same way the inquiry carried out by my Department was constrained by these proceedings as we clearly did not want to be accused of interfering with wit nesses at any stage. At all times I was obliged to point out that natural justice would have to apply.
The inquiries have yielded the results which are before the House. Disputed facts would clearly require a further tribunal of inquiry.
Regarding paragraph 1.5, we have been able to reach conclusions on the central issues we examined. We pointed out that one of these conclusions, namely that which related to the county registrar who has resigned, is extremely serious.
Will the Minister confirm that one of the principal reasons for the delay in the announcement of the resignations of the two younger people was the negotiation of their pensions with the Government? Will he indicate the basis on which the Government decided on the pensions awarded and the criteria used in settling on the figures agreed, namely, £30,000 per annum for a 50 year old man and £15,000 for a man aged 45 years? Before settling on these figures did the Minister inquire from actuaries the cost to a 50 year old person of buying from a pension fund or a body competent in providing a pension on the open market an index linked pension of £30,000 per annum, given the normal expected life span? In other words, what is the net current value of a pension of £30,000 for a 50 year old person? Will the Minister tell the House the net current value to a 45 year old person of an index linked pension of £15,000 per annum? The Minister has given the net current value of the income lost to the persons concerned. Therefore, perhaps he will tell us the cost of an index linked pension of £30,000 per annum purchased by a person aged 50 years in the private sector.
Unfortunately at this point it is very difficult for me to answer the latter questions put by Deputy Bruton as further assessment would be required to enable me provide the net values. However, actuarial expertise was called upon in assessing the value of the pensions as they have been declared to the House.
The Deputy raised the issue of whether the delays in dealing with the resignations of the two younger men were related to pension entitlements. Mr. Justice Hugh O'Flaherty, formerly of the Supreme Court, did not seek a pension at any time. He resigned his position without negotiating a pension. Mr. Michael Quinlan, the County Registrar, sent me his letter of resignation this morning and did not seek a pension from the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform. On the contrary, he simply wished me well in the difficult tasks which lay ahead of me in the Department. Mr. Justice Cyril Kelly was very concerned about the two cases I mentioned. It was not an ephemeral or superficial concern – he was genuinely concerned about the cases. Mr. Justice Kelly raised the issue of a pension with us, and we responded. Irrespective of whether he had done so the Government on balance felt that this was the humane way to proceed. I fully realise that some people will say they should not get pensions.
I am not saying that. I am asking about the basis for the figures settled upon.
Mr. Justice Hugh O'Flaherty has given many years of service to the State and took an alarming drop in salary when he became a judge of the Supreme Court. Mr. Justice Cyril Kelly would now be at the prime of his career, and has three young children. I understand Mr. Michael Quinlan, who resigned without seeking a pension, has six young children.
What criteria were used in settling on the figures?
My understanding is that the criteria related to the accrued earner pension rights.
What does that phrase mean?
I am informed that it is related to their years of service.
Calculated on what basis?
I told Deputy Bruton that I will furnish him with all the details sought by him.
It is not a private matter, but a matter for the House.
There is no difficulty in providing the information to the House when I receive it.
It is interesting that the losses were calculated but the benefits were not in advance of the Minister coming before the House. Does he intend having further inquiries made into outstanding issues which need to be investigated? In a reply to me on 1 April the Minister indicated he was suspending a decision on whether to refer these matters to the Garda for further investigation. Having received both reports, has the Minister made up his mind on the matter, particularly having regard to paragraph 3.17 of the Department's report?
I accept there are disputed facts, but to resolve them would necessitate a tribunal of inquiry.
Regard them as proved.
I regard the matter as being left as it is unless there is fresh information which necessitates or requires further inquiries by way of tribunal of inquiry or otherwise.
With regard to the Garda Síochána, I took advice on that matter and am informed the investigations and reports produced would be insuf ficient to enable the Garda to conduct an investigation leading to a successful prosecution.
Mere days after the handing down by Mr. Justice Kelly of this bizarre decision on 12 November, the Minister brought a recommendation to Cabinet for that judge's appointment to the High Court. Prior to proposing Mr. Justice Kelly for promotion, did the Minister consult any member of the Judiciary on his suitability for promotion? Did he receive representations from members of the Judiciary about the promotion of Mr. Justice Kelly? Did the Minister consult with or receive any advice from the Attorney General as to the suitability of Mr. Justice Kelly for promotion from the Circuit Court to the High Court?
Deputy Owen said earlier that she accepted I was not involved in an improper way in the promotion of Mr. Justice Kelly to the High Court. I assume Deputy Jim Higgins also accepts that. With regard to consultations, every Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform is aware that soundings are taken from sections of the legal profession. Most of them are given voluntarily to the Minister. The appointment of the judge concerned was a matter for Government.
That is not the question.
I received representations from many sources on the appointment of the judge concerned. I was not put under undue pressure to appoint Mr. Justice Kelly if that is what Deputy Jim Higgins implies.
When I mention representations, I do not necessarily mean positive ones. Did the Minister receive any negative representations about the proposed appointment?
I am not aware of any negative representations about the appointment of Mr. Justice Cyril Kelly. It was recognised that he was an outstanding member of the Circuit Criminal Court and many lawyers stated that. In those circumstances and given the widespread view in the legal profession that he had handled his position well, there was nothing strange about his appointment. I assure Deputies of that and I take grave exception if Deputy Jim Higgins is imputing to me any improper motive in the elevation to the High Court of Mr. Justice Cyril Kelly.
Methinks the Minister doth protest too much.
The Deputy cannot have it both ways.
Does the Minister understand that his pleadings that the events giving rise the resignation of two senior judges are exceptional do not impress most of the public? People see that the legal profession is riddled with—
The Deputy should direct a question to the Minister and not make a statement, even a statement with a question mark after it.
The administration of justice has been referred to frequently.
The Deputy should ask a brief question. Time is not on our side.
Does the Minister accept that the settlement terms he proposes for the two judges will stun the average worker? For having made serious mistakes for which they resigned, they are from this moment awarded pensions almost twice that to which they would normally be entitled.
The Minister mentioned humanitarian concerns and the number of children they have. If a worker in the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform, who also had four or six children and who performed a socially useful task such as cleaning the offices, made a mistake, had to resign and sought double their pension from the Minister, what would he say?
The judges resigned over alleged double standards. Does the Minister agree that he now rewards them with a breathtaking double standard of his own by doubling their pension? To the golden circle we can now add the silken circle.
Will the Deputy ask a question?
Will the Minister make a clean breast of it and say honestly to the people what they know already, that on the question of the Judiciary and the political system, with few exceptions, one of the main qualifications for being appointed a judge is to be a political hack of the party in power? This cant about the separation of the judicial system from—
Deputy Higgins should resume his seat if he will not ask a question. He is being unfair to other Members. There is a half hour for questions.
The political parties have already had 60 minutes. Does the Minister agree that it is a double standard to talk about the separation of the political system and the judiciary when people know they are intertwined?
I did not operate in a vacuum. I took legal advice on my actions. It is a grotesque exaggeration for Deputy Joe Higgins to suggest that the judges will receive a huge amount of money out of proportion to what they would have received. It must be remembered that the two men would now be at the peak of their professions had they stayed practising at the bar. Mr. Justice Hugh O'Flaherty was recognised as one of the leading counsel in these islands. No one can estimate what he would have earned but it would have been much more than whatever he earned in the Supreme Court. I remember him saying he was anxious to serve the country.
Does the Minister mean he would take the job of Commissioner?
People may disagree with Mr. Justice Cyril Kelly's pension. He would have also been coming to the peak of his profession at the bar. There is no exact science for this. I took the best advice available and took what I considered in the circumstances to be the fairest and most humane path.
Appendix 16 to the report, the letter dated 31 March 1999 from the Chief State Solicitor to the Secretary General of the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform, states that, on his return to the office, the law clerk made a report to the Director of Public Prosecutions outlining the outcome. Am I to understand that the DPP became aware of the case on 12 November 1998? When did the Attorney General first have knowledge of this case?
I am not in a position to interrogate the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions.
It is in the Minister's report.
I am not in a position to interrogate the officials in the offices of the Director of Public Prosecutions or the Chief State Solicitor. It is unfair, therefore, to ask me questions I cannot answer. To the best of my knowledge the Attorney General became aware of the matter on 9 February and informed me as expeditiously as could have been expected – he telephoned me in Berlin on 10 February. I made the moves I have already outlined. I told him to immediately tell the Chief Justice about the matter with a view to having it investigated.
The DPP knew on 12 November.
I told the Secretary General of my Department, Mr. Dalton, that he should immediately contact the Garda Commissioner to see if an investigation was warranted but on the advice available to him there was insufficient evidence on which to ground such an investigation. I also initiated an inquiry among the officials in my Department.
I do not know what more I could have done in this matter. When I spoke of checks and balances in the system I spoke—
The Minister should tell the House that the DPP got information on 12 November. He should stop snowballing.
The Minister without interruption.
I am entitled to answer the questions that have been raised, but I have no intention of being harassed into giving answers.
As Taoiseach I had to answer questions about the DPP.
Not about specific cases.
No, but there was a systems failure.
Three inquiries were put in place. When I spoke about checks and balances I referred to the checks and balances between the Judiciary and the Executive. I have answered everything as far as I can.
When did the Minister ask the Chief Justice to carry out the investigation and how was the request relayed to him? With regard to the way the Minister runs his Department, does he reply to letters from Members of this House at all? Why did he not reply to my letter of 15 February where I indicated to him that I wanted to be able to give the Ryan family some explanation of why these bizarre incidents occurred? Is it not the case that on a previous occasion he had the good grace to cross the floor of the House and apologise to me for—
A question please.
That is a question.
I do not see it, but I would prefer if you would ask a brief question as time is running short.
It is a question.
It is a statement that the Minister crossed the floor to you.
I asked the Minister if it was not the case that on a previous occasion he crossed the floor of the House and graciously apologised to me for not replying for six months in a not dissimilar situation? Is it not the case that I have had a number of such experiences with the Minister since then? I refer specifically to a case at Edgeworthstown where there was a delay of nine months.
The Minister has spoken at length about his compassion for the Ryan family. While I would not accuse him of callous disregard—
A question please.
—does he not run the risk of being seen to have shown callous disregard for the circumstances in which the Ryan family found itself by refusing to reply to a normal polite inquiry on their behalf?
On one occasion I apologised to Deputy Rabbitte regarding the speed of replies from my Department to him. I did so to assure him that despite any difference between us in the House, I would not single him out for that kind of treatment.
I did not get any replies from the Minister.
I acknowledge that I received representations from the Deputy on 16 February with regard to this matter.
It was 15 February.
I received further representations from him on 15 March. At the time developments in the case were imminent and a judicial review hearing was scheduled for 15 March. That was subsequently adjourned to 25 March. Events were overtaking the replies. A full reply setting out all of the circumstances—
The Minister did not make any reply. It was not a question of replies being overtaken by events.
The Minister without interruption.
A full reply setting out all of the circumstances will be issued. Deputy Rabbitte asked me specific questions which merited replies. It must be clear that as events unfolded and as I was in a position to outline the precise situation to the House and the public I did so. However, when all of these inquiries were ongoing I was constrained by the judicial proceedings which had been initiated on 22 February and lasted until 25 March 1999.
I call Deputy Conor Lenihan and Deputy John Bruton for final supplementary questions.
Why did the Minister of State at the Department of Health and Children, Deputy Fahey, not give information to the House, as was his duty?
I compliment the officials in the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform for the promptness of their inquiry. Will the Minister reassure the House that there has not been and that he does not believe there has been a concerted effort to pervert the course of justice with regard to the Sheedy case?
Given that the Minister said he would not answer in the House for the inefficiencies in the office of the Chief State Solicitor, will he assure the House that the Taoiseach, who is responsible for the operation of that office, will make available to the House the answers the Minister claims he cannot make because he does not have ministerial responsibility in that regard?
On the questions raised by Deputy Conor Lenihan, the reports speak for themselves. I do not accept Deputy John Bruton's contention that there were inefficiencies in the office of the Chief State Solicitor.
Did the Minister not read the file? There are references to negligence and shoddiness.
However, the Taoiseach will answer questions in the House for those offices under his remit. That should not surprise Deputy Bruton.