A head-to-head confrontation between the judiciary and the Oireachtas is in the process of being averted with the decision of Mr Justice Hugh O'Flaherty to resign from the Supreme Court. The Government is expecting Mr Justice Cyril Kelly of the High Court to follow suit by tomorrow.

Yet there are a number of questions yet to be answered by the Government about the extraordinary drama being played out in the Philip Sheedy case before full confidence can be restored in the impartiality of the administration of justice.

The sudden decision by the senior judge in the Supreme Court, Mr Justice O'Flaherty, to resign on Saturday already has eased the pressure. The emotional interview by Mr Justice O'Flaherty on RTE on Friday night, indicating that he would divide the whole concept of the separation of powers by challenging an impeachment resolution, sent shock waves through the political and judicial systems.

It is easy to understand, at a human level, why Mr Justice O'Flaherty would have gone out to fight the necessity to remove him. He was most anxious, as his legal adviser, Mr John Rogers, told The Irish Times that evening, to draw a distinction between his indirect action and the direct actions of Mr Justice Kelly in the Sheedy case.

Mr Rogers drew attention to the Chief Justice's finding that while Mr Justice O'Flaherty's intervention was "inappropriate and unwise" and "left his motives and action open to misinterpretation", Mr Justice Kelly "failed to conduct the case in a manner befitting a judge".

By Saturday morning, however, it was becoming clear to Mr Justice O'Flaherty that he could never sit on the bench again. "The highest duty of a judge is impartiality, as well as the appearance of impartiality, and as my last duty and so that confidence can be restored in the administration of justice, I have decided to offer my resignation as judge of the Supreme Court," he said.

If the Chief Justice's report made it starkly obvious that Mr Justice O'Flaherty had to go to preserve the perception of the impartiality of the administration of justice, the case for Mr Justice Kelly's resignation is stronger. Political sources indicated that he would have no possibility whatsoever of challenging his impeachment.

It would seem, at the time of writing, that the first challenge to the separation of powers between the Oireachtas and the judiciary is abating. The system has been seen to have worked. It had the capacity to deal with the unthinkable: the impeachment of a judge for damaging, or compromising, the administration of justice. The last time a judge was impeached was in 1830 in England.

The Minister for Justice, Mr O'Donoghue, will bring forward new proposals to the Cabinet on Tuesday to strengthen weaknesses in the administration of justice in an effort to restore confidence in the courts.

In the meantime, however, the Philip Sheedy case is far from closed in the public mind. There are still a number of questions hanging over from the appendices to the Chief Justice's report. The statements and letters from the various parties to Mr Justice Hamilton reveal a number of contradictions in the accounts. The Chief Justice came to his conclusions based on the "undisputed" facts.

Legal sources have little doubt that the letters from Mr Michael Staines, solicitor, to the Chief Justice, after The Sunday Times published Mr Justice O'Flaherty's side of the story on April 11th, are central to the resolution of the Sheedy controversy.

Mr Staines wrote to the Chief Justice on the following day, April 12th, saying that the article was "misleading" in a number of ways. He was particularly concerned with the suggestion that any judges or the county registrar were relying on his office to inform the prosecution authorities of any application to review the Sheedy sentence.

At the request of the Chief Justice, Mr Staines furnished a written statement "setting out all I know in relation to this particular case" later on April 12th. His statement raises the most serious concerns.

Mr Staines said that he received a phone call from Mr Michael Quinlan, the County Registrar, on or about October 28th, 1998, asking him when he was going to put in an application to review the sentence of Philip Sheedy. "I informed him that I knew nothing whatsoever about such an application. He informed me that Judge Cyril Kelly (then a judge of the Circuit Court) was awaiting an application for review," he stated.

It then emerged, from his statement, that Mr Staines had no involvement with the original sentence of Sheedy but that his father had sought his advice in relation to what Sheedy could do at the end of December 1977. "I therefore was not sure that the Sheedys wished me to act in the case," he said.

Mr Staines asked Mr Quinlan, during the same conversation, what this was all about and "he indicated to me that, `You don't want to know'. "

Mr Staines then met the Sheedy parents on October 30th, 1998, and received written instructions from Philip Sheedy on November 2nd, 1998, to represent him in future proceedings.

He informed Mr Quinlan on November 4th, 1998, that he had instructions to represent Sheedy. "He referred me to a case of the DPP v. Paul McDonald which was an extempore judgment delivered by O'Flaherty J. in the Court of Criminal Appeal on the 29th of July, 1998, and he suggested that I would base any application on that particular case," Mr Staines said.

Mr Staines was not in court on November 12th, 1998, when Judge Kelly released Sheedy. Mr Luigi Rea BL was attended by Mr Staines's assistant. "Some days later I was informed by Luigi Rea BL that Judge Kelly had requested that I would obtain from a psychiatrist a medical report which would set out Philip Sheedy's psychiatric/psychological condition as of the 12/11/98 as the medical report on the court file was from a psychologist and also out of date. This new report was then going to be put on the court file. I indicated I was not prepared to do this," Mr Staines stated.

The revelations in Mr Staines's statement make it imperative for the Minister for Justice to answer further questions about the case. How did Mr Quinlan, the County Registrar, know that Judge Kelly was awaiting an application for review of the Sheedy case? Why did he contact Mr Staines before he was retained as Mr Sheedy's solicitor? When he told Mr Staines, "You don't want to know," what did that mean?