I welcome the opportunity to bring this report before the House and I look forward to it being debated in both Houses of the Oireachtas. Like others who have commented on this matter on the many occasions it has arisen, both inside and outside the Oireachtas, we address the issue with mixed feelings. First, we are conscious of the feelings of hurt and loss experienced by the people involved in the terrible accident which killed a mother of two young children and left her husband a single parent and severely disabled. We are also conscious of the ter rible loss and pain of other people affected by the accident and particularly by what the committee was asked to investigate, the early release of Mr. Philip Sheedy.
I pay tribute to Deputy Eoin Ryan, the chairman of the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Justice, Equality and Women's Rights for the honourable way he acted when it became obvious that there might be a conflict of interest in the context of the committee's investigation and his remaining in the Chair. I also pay tribute to the members of the committee who worked with me, particularly the members of the working group.
I will give the House a brief summary of the background to the need for the committee to examine the circumstances surrounding this case, the progress or lack of progress made and the lessons the committee has learned. Hopefully, the Houses of the Oireachtas will be able to continue the work that the committee was not able to do within its resources and will raise urgent questions about the initiatives and reforms which are necessary so that if an event again arises which involves the political and judicial branches of Government and confusion about the separation of powers under the Constitution, at least there will be a clear path and more powers to deal with it.
The committee considered the report from the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform on the early release from prison of Mr. Philip Sheedy and presented an interim report to both Houses of the Oireachtas on 20 April this year. In that report, the committee signalled that it would proceed to consider matters arising from this event. It hoped it might be able to obtain answers to the many questions raised by the sequence of events and to be in a position to report back to the Oireachtas. It was hoped that it would be possible to recommend procedures and policies to ensure this would never happen again and to allay the fears and concern of the public about the case.
The committee considered a letter from Mr. Hugh O'Flaherty, dated 16 April, in which he indicated his willingness to make a statement to the committee and "to answer any and all questions which members may raise". In acceding to Mr. O'Flaherty's request, the committee also decided that the same opportunity should be offered to Mr. Cyril Kelly and Mr. Michael Quinlan. Letters were sent to each asking if they wished to meet with the committee on this basis. During this period the committee was at all times acutely aware of the importance of the constitutional separation of the judicial and political functions. It was also motivated at all times by minimising further hurt to everybody involved in this dreadful case.
The first way the committee tried to proceed was by means of an informal inquiry in which people would voluntarily appear before it. However, in a letter dated 5 May, Mr. O'Flaherty indicated he would not attend and could not further help the committee as the Constitution did not permit him to do so. This effectively meant the committee would not have the voluntary co-operation of all persons. Mr. Cyril Kelly indicated that he had not adopted a final position in the matter and was following the proceedings of the committee. Mr. Michael Quinlan offered to attend and to co-operate with the committee.
In seeking advice from senior counsel it emerged that a number of different procedural ways might be available to the committee. However, all options were fraught with constitutional or legislative difficulties. With that in mind, the committee decided to write to the Chief Justice, Mr. Liam Hamilton, and request him to make further inquiries into the circumstances surrounding the Sheedy case. The Chief Justice had already presented a report to the Government in an efficacious and efficient manner. The committee believed that if he could undertake that task on behalf of the Government he might also be able to continue and conclude it, perhaps with more success than the committee. Alternatively, if the Chief Justice felt he could not undertake that task, the committee asked if he could suggest, within the existing constitutional and legal framework, how the committee might progress.
A reply from Mr. Liam Hamilton, dated 10 June, stated that he had completed all the inquiries open to him and that it was not a matter for him to advise or make suggestions to the committee as to how it should proceed. This second avenue having been closed, the committee had two further options offering some prospect of progressing the matter. The first entailed the continued involvement of the committee or some other Oireachtas committee appointed for that purpose. The second option was the establishment of a tribunal of inquiry.
Members of the committee are conscious of the negative public reaction to the setting up of yet another public inquiry. They are also conscious of the difficulties involved in attempting to amend existing legislation to qualify the exemption now enjoyed by members of the Judiciary under the compellability of witnesses legislation. They are also extremely aware, as are the Members of all committees, that a committee such as ours does not have the time, expertise or resources necessary to bring about a speedy conclusion. The committee is overwhelmed with a huge work programme regarding other legislation and that would add considerably to our difficulties.
The other option is a tribunal of inquiry. The tribunal could be established within appropriately narrow terms of reference with a fixed time for reporting back. It might have a better prospect of securing satisfactory answers. The committee admits that it could face the same legal difficulties and the prospect of constitutional challenge but it might not run directly into the very difficult and immediate problem of the separation of the Judiciary from the Houses of the Oireachtas, a problem the committee constantly faced. The committee believes the Houses of the Oireachtas might not be hindered in the same way and should be allowed to continue to make progress on this matter. The outstanding issue is so serious that is requires, at least, the consideration of the All-Party Committee on the Constitution, and even the prospect of having a referendum on a constitutional amendment.
Members of both Houses were faced with the prospect of a constitutional crisis if we had tried to work through a procedural process towards the impeachment of judges. It was then realised that the Article on judicial functions, the special exemption of judges, and the lack of a process being laid out under the Constitution or legislatively, did not allow any forum or procedure to be continued with, that would allow both sides to be heard on this matter. That is still an outstanding and urgent area to be examined. There may be other occasions on which the House will be faced with the same difficulty, so the committee would like the Oireachtas to examine this issue and use all its powers, either by way of legislation or constitutional amendment.
We welcome the fact that as a result of the working group under Mrs. Justice Susan Denham, recommendations have already been made for the establishment of a judicial body to contribute to high standards of judicial conduct, and a system for handling complaints about judicial conduct. Members of the committee agree that the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform should ensure that such a judicial body is established at the earliest possible date and that the committee will have an input into the recommendations for its establishment. Above all, the committee wishes to convey its frustration and disappointment with the futile attempts to get answers despite the hard work and goodwill of everybody involved on the committee. It is now the responsibility of the Oireachtas to use every possible method to ensure accountability at all levels in every institution of State in order to restore confidence to the administrative and judicial system that has been severely dented.
Article 5.2 of the Constitution concerning judicial functions has been widely interpreted by some of the judges. We could usefully have a debate as to whether the Article has been extended to a far greater degree than was envisaged in 1937.
I thank all members of the committee who worked in such a cohesive way towards achieving a consensus. The commitment and shared concern of all our members was an example of how the committees of this House can and do work. It was an honour to have been able to chair the committee. Unfortunately, the report and its conclusions are not what we would wish to have presented to the House. Our committee, and others, when faced with such difficult decisions – particularly with regard to judicial and political matters – must ensure that even if it means changing the Constitution or setting up a tribunal of inquiry, despite negative public reaction, it must be done. I hope some way will be found to answer the questions arising from the Sheedy case which has given rise to such public concern. I hope also that the judicial body, which should be set up as quickly as possible, will ensure that a case like this will not happen again.