The Minister of State, Deputy Moffatt, is a decent, civilised man but he has been placed in a difficult position. His speech was virtually useless as it was a rehash of information we already have. It was prepared in advance and could not possibly constitute a response to the serious questions raised by Members. For that reason, the speech is irrelevant and an insult. It does not deal with any of the central issues.
This is a sad business for a variety of people in different ways: the family struck by this tragedy, the person who caused this tragedy and who must suffer from remorse of conscience and the devastation caused to his family and the judges and other court officials caught up in this. However, leaving aside this sadness, we have a responsibility, although the Minister seems incapable of doing it, to get to the heart of the issue and to examine the questions raised.
We are told there is a separation of powers between the Judiciary and the Oireachtas. That is not the case because these people are all political appointees – the judges and the registrar. In many instances, there is no transparency or accountability in the legal profession. This is particularly the case in the office of the registrar.
We must address this seriously. The four pillars of this State have been attacked recently. The Church is coming under scrutiny and clouds of obloquy and scandal. The banks have been swindling their customers by taking money out of their accounts without permission. The courts are now impugned. We must examine this closely, which I do not think the judges realise.
I have with me the words of some our leading judges. Mr. Justice Keane said in an in camera case held in the Supreme Court that “The most benign climate for the growth of corruption and the abuse of powers, whether by the Judiciary or members of the legal profession, is one of secrecy”. The former Mr. Justice O'Flaherty said in the same case that “The light must be allowed to shine on the administration of justice; that is the best guarantee for the survival for the fundamental freedoms of the people of any country.” This case indicates there were dark corners into which this light did not shine and that the legal profession is a cosy cartel, in which the clients – the public – get very little value as evidenced in a bewildering and disturbing number of cases.
One of the issues raised was the question of sentencing policy. An article in the Sunday Tribune of 25 April stated:
The issue of sentencing deals done behind closed doors raised by the Sheedy case, where prosecution and defence counsel discuss the options with a judge in his chambers, was also raised in 1996 by the LRC. They remarked: "Our consultations, in particular with the judges of the Circuit Court, revealed, to our surprise, that such indications are sought and obtained from judges in chambers more frequently than we had thought."
This is not openness and transparency but a dark corner in which corruption can breed. The article continued:
They added: "If sentencing became more predictable as a result of the Judiciary being better informed in general and having available a series of headline judgments of the Court of Criminal Appeal in different cases, there would be no need for such negotiations in chambers".
We read, from time to time, complaints in the newspapers about consistency in sentencing. They are talking about consistency between different judges. I could spend the afternoon giving a seminar on inconsistencies in the judgments of the same judge, including judges of the Supreme Court. We have a real problem in terms of consistency, and not just between different judges.
There is, however, a tragic consistency in the courts in terms of the narrow backgrounds from which the two principal sides come – those who make the judgments and those upon whom the judgments are executed. An article in the Sunday Tribune by Diarmuid Doyle showed the narrow range of educational background of the judges. Of the 32 judges of the High and Supreme Courts, an astonishing 22 went to one of just seven secondary schools – Clongowes, Blackrock, St. Mary's, Crescent College, Gonzaga, Glenstal and Belvedere. This outdoes the British system of class justice. According to a survey entitled “Crime and Poverty in Ireland” conducted by Ivana Bacik and Michael O'Connell, people from the poorest 20 per cent of communities in the Dublin region were almost 12 times more likely to find themselves as defendants in the District Court compared with those in the 20 per cent least deprived communities. There is this very narrow focusing.
I do not believe any judge or any person should lose their job because of a perception. One of the stupidest things I have heard all through this controversy is that people were perceived to be this, that or the other. That is a reason for referring the matter to the Chief Justice for a report. If after that report it emerged that there was only a perception, why in the name of justice should anybody resign or be forced from their job and suffer a severe financial cutback simply because of the public's ignorant perception? It is the responsibility of the State to make sure that perception is dispelled. I believe it was not just a question of perception. There is more to it than that.
A very good summary by Dick Walsh in The Irish Times of 24 April states:
The case came to the attention of the Supreme Court Judge Hugh O'Flaherty when he happened to meet a neighbour's son and Mr. Sheedy's sister.
He spoke to the Registrar. The case was listed for hearing by the Circuit Court (later High Court) judge, Cyril Kelly – not the judge who had imposed the sentence – and after a hearing which lasted less than two minutes Mr. Sheedy was set free. He had served one year of a four-year sentence.
Between Mr. O'Flaherty's meeting on the street in Donnybrook and Mr. Sheedy's release, this extraordinary tale was marked by departures from normal procedure and, in some cases, blatantly irregular practices.
That is not perception. That is fact.
Let us look then at what we have in terms of the letters from Michael Staines, the solicitor, particularly involving the office of the county registrar. Annex 23, the letter of 12 April, 1999 to the Honourable Mr. Chief Justice Hamilton states:
. . . I am concerned with the suggestion that any Judges or the County Registrar were relying on my office to inform the prosecution authorities of any application to review Mr. Sheedy's sentence. Lest there be any doubt, the initiative to list this case did not come from my office.
However, it was being put about that it was his responsibility, and this was wrong. Let us look at the follow-up letter, dated the same day, again dealing with this matter and again from Michael Staines. It is a much longer letter which, after the introduction, states:
1. On or about the 28/10/98 I received a phone call from Michael Quinlan the County Registrar. He asked me when I was going to put in an application to review the sentence of Philip Sheedy. I explained to him that I knew nothing whatsoever about such an application. He informed me that Judge Cyril Kelly was awaiting an application for review. Mr. Quinlan asked me to ring him when I was putting it in. I explained that I had had no involvement with the original sentence of Philip Sheedy but that his father had sought my advice in relation to what Mr. Sheedy could do at the end of December 1997. I therefore was not sure that the Sheedys wished me to act in this case. I confirmed to Mr. Quinlan that I would ring Mr. Sheedy's previous Solicitor and discuss the matter with him. I asked Michael Quinlan what this was all about and he indicated to me that "You don't want to know".
That is a very strange thing for the registrar to say. It is also very strange that Mr. Justice Kelly jumped the case up the queue from No. 19 at the very moment that the State's representatives were out of the court. The minute they went to make a phone call, on it came, out of the window. That has a very worrying appearance in terms of the sequence of the events involved there.
With regard to Mr. Hugh O'Flaherty, I know him from personal experience to be a very decent, cultivated, liberal gentleman and I am sorry that he is mixed up in this. I know very little about Mr. Kelly. I know very little about Mr. Quinlan on a personal basis. However, I am very worried indeed about the whole situation. There are a number of questions which have not been resolved. First, what interest did Mr. Kelly have in the Sheedy case? Why did he behave in this extraordinarily bizarre fashion? Why did he then take the case, and why did he dispose of it in 90 seconds when the relevant people on the other side were out of the court? Why did he not ask where the other side were? If we are talking about justice, why did he request counsel for the defence after the court case for this psychological profile?
I want to turn to the question of the office of registrar. I have papers in another case about which I am particularly worried which involve the county registrar's office and I want them examined. I want the Minister to write to me to seek these papers. The office of the registrar is a quasi-judicial appointment with no transparency, no accountability. He sits in court and lists cases. It is a very powerful position. He can list them, de-list them, re-list them, do whatever he likes, and does. In my experience, in the past that office has behaved in a grossly unprofessional manner, capricious and arbitrary to the nth degree. It awards costs or refuses to award costs, and against this there is no appeal. Where is the transparency? Where is the light that the Supreme Court spoke of as being shed into the corners of Irish justice? This involves people in expense. For example, one has to move motions to get a case listed. One has to pay expenses. One incurs costs, and they are not often given to the applicant. In the case in which I am involved, the papers relating to which I am prepared to make available—
