I wish to reiterate at the outset, for reasons I will outline, that separate representations received by me at different times from each of the parties in the Sheedy case, and passed on by my office to the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform, have no relevance whatsoever to the circumstances surrounding the premature release in the Circuit Court of Philip Sheedy last November. It is important that we all keep a sense of proportion and not treat an incidental detail that is essentially immaterial as if it were a vital link in the chain.
Mr. Philip Sheedy, it will be recalled, was sentenced to be imprisoned for four years on 20 October 1997 in the Circuit Criminal Court, having been convicted of dangerous driving causing death while under the excessive influence of alcohol. On foot of representations made to another member of the Judiciary, a review was reinstated and the sentence was reviewed a year later by the judge who should have sat in the case originally, but did not. Early release was ordered by him in unusual circumstances, for reasons that have not yet been totally clarified but which have no political connection. When the release came to the notice of the family of the victim, strong representations were made and, following an official inquiry, the Chief Justice was very critical of the handling of the case by two of the judges involved, both of whom subsequently resigned.
It was brought to my attention by my private secretary on 12 April that I had made an inquiry on 9 July 1998 as to whether it would be possible for Mr. Sheedy to get day release. Although I did not immediately recall at the time what way the matter had been brought up, I have now established that the inquiry was made by the father of Mr. Sheedy, neither of whom I knew, in seeking day release for his son for one or two days a week to attend a training course on projects of benefit to the community.
Some of the comment has blurred the distinction between "release" and "day release", which are quite separate issues. I wish to point out that "day release" has no bearing on the length of the sentence to be served but merely concerns the conditions under which the sentence is served. I emphasise that no representations or inquiries were made by me or my office as to whether Philip Sheedy could be released early, which was the issue in the judges' handling of the case.
I should, however, state that Mr. Sheedy senior enclosed with his letter proposals drawn up by an instructor in FÁS to expand and modify the general programme of day release, in a way that after a certain period day release would have become equivalent to actual release on part-time community work as an alternative to prison. When instructing my private secretary, I left this proposal to one side as I probably considered it a longer-term policy matter which, perhaps, Mr. Sheedy thought could benefit his son, as well as enabling him to give something back to the community. After an extensive search I have now found the letter that Mr. Sheedy senior sent to me, which, with his permission, I will now read into the record of the House. The letter is undated, but the manuscript note given to my private secretary was dated 9 July 1998. The letter reads as follows:
Mr. Ahern,
My son Philip is presently serving a four year sentence in Shelton Abbey, Arklow, Co. Wicklow, having received the sentence on a Death by Dangerous Driving charge. To date he has served 9 months.
The reason for my making this representation to you in your capacity as Taoiseach, you may be in a position to recommend Philip for the day release work programme currently operating in our prison system for the rehabilitation of prisoners. I believe through my employment with FÁS and its involvement with community work groups that there is a lot of projects in which he could use his architectural skills in the community around the Arklow area on a day release, say one or two days per week – projects where he would be involved in designing, supervising and advising on community skills or special buildings for the elderly. Prior to his accident he had been involved as a volunteer worker in designing special buildings for the elderly in Summerhill, County Meath. His services would benefit the Arklow community and also keep his work skills fresh and active.
I enclose a copy of a proposal programme which has been designed by Tony McAvinney "an inspiring instructor" in the FÁS town centre in Tallaght. This programme, with the title Offenders Community Employment Programme, is envisaged to save up to £1 million per annum on the basis of a recent newspaper report which gives a figure of the average cost of a prisoner in our prisons at £45,000. If this programme was implemented I would gladly take leave of absence from my position in FÁS and work for the Department of Justice in the setting up, co-ordination and supervision of the pilot project. My work in the setting up of FÁS work schemes in the Tallaght area over the last nineteen years would make this task very simple and I would guarantee very successful.
The programme would differ from the present community services programme in that the offender will serve at least six months in prison and the remainder of his sentence on a particular single project as part of a team.
The reason again for writing this simple representation to you is that Philip through the day release programme currently in operation would find some gain from helping the community and paying back to society the benefit of his work skills.
If the above is not possible I will understand and I thank you for finding the time to read this request.
Yours sincerely,
Philip Sheedy Senior.
The implication that I took from the last paragraph was that if nothing could be done, no reply was needed.
My then private secretary, who served my predecessor as Taoiseach as well as myself and who acted correctly in this matter, spoke by telephone to the private secretary to the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform on the basis of my handwritten note. The inquiry was confined to the possibility of day release as it operates at present. There was nothing covert about the query. The details were registered on computer. The instruction to my private secretary, as noted by him, was simply "Justice – What is the story?" I did not make a recommendation, as perhaps Mr. Sheedy senior would have liked me to have done, nor was the inquiry, strictly speaking, made or addressed to the Minister.
It has been confirmed to me that the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform treated it, as intended, as a routine inquiry. The Minister did not see it. Numerous inquiries are addressed to him relating to all manner of cases by Deputies from all sides of the House and by priests and social workers. Routine inquiries of all kinds are made all the time between respective ministerial private offices on behalf of Ministers or the Taoiseach.
Sometimes, as we know, people who are released early go on to commit repeat offences. However, my inquiry was not a recommendation or request for early release. It was concerned only with the possibility of day release. I was not aware of any approaches the Sheedy family made to anyone else but it is not unusual for more than one public representative, often from different parties, or others in positions of authority to be approached about the same matter. I was not aware of Mr. Joe Burke's visit to Mr. Sheedy in Shelton Abbey.
The oral reply my office subsequently received was that day release was not possible because it would be too early in the sentence and that there was a scheduled review in October 1999. There was nothing on the file that would have shown the review date had, at that time, been removed.
When a negative response was received from the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform, I dropped the matter and did not pursue it further. I accepted, without question, the Department's view on the matter. I did not press the case in any way, even though the Minister has powers to order the early release of convicted persons.
To sum up, my office made a routine inquiry about the possibility of day release only. It received a negative response. The matter was left there. The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform stated that the answer to numerous requests for concessions of one kind or another from Mr. Sheedy was always "no", so it is nonsense to suggest that the Government showed any special sympathy to Mr. Sheedy.
The issue in the Sheedy case was whether judges in the light of their duties acted properly. The Chief Justice expressed a critical opinion on that. I, in the performance of my duties, acted with complete propriety in relation to the representations received. I or, more accurately, my office acting on my behalf did only the minimum of what any Deputy does in the circumstances – pass on the inquiry, note the response and, if at any point there is a development, pass it back to the inquirer. I would have done the same for any constituent or citizen, regardless of his or her social or political background. I applied no political pressure to get Mr. Sheedy early release.
I should also mention that I received a letter from John Ryan on 15 February last, whose wife Anne was tragically killed in the road accident. He explained the deep sense of betrayal by the legal system which he and his family felt at the early release of Mr. Sheedy. He asked me for any assistance I could give to remedy the situation. The letter was immediately acknowledged and I referred it to the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Deputy O'Donoghue, on 16 February with a request for material for a reply.
In the event, the pace of developments made it difficult to issue any early substantive reply. My private secretary contacted Mr. Ryan by phone on 12 April to apologise for the delay in replying to him and to explain that a reply would be given to him as soon as the Hamilton report was received. Following receipt of the report, I contacted Mr. Ryan by telephone on 16 April and we discussed the conclusions reached by the Chief Justice. I also replied in writing to him on the following day.
The Government treated this entire matter involving members of the Judiciary with the utmost seriousness and without fear or favour towards any of those involved. It should be overwhelmingly obvious that the Government did not seek at any stage to protect Mr. Sheedy from facing the full consequences of his offence. Appeals to shorten sentences actually served, even in the case of equally serious crimes, are regularly received from Deputies, but there was no such appeal made by me.
I and my general office have a large casework, apart from the conduct of Government which has to be my principal concern. When I came back from the Easter break on 12 April, I was reminded that I had made a representation by my private secretary who, in turn, had been alerted by the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform which had confirmed that it had a note on its file to inform the Taoiseach of any developments in the case. My private secretary first heard the suggestion that there could be something on file on 1 April when we were in Hillsborough Castle, the Thursday before Easter. Nevertheless, I informed the Tánaiste about the matter in the following couple of days and the Cabinet by the end of the week.
