The family of the dead woman, Mrs Anne Ryan, the public and the judicial and political systems await the results of two investigations into the strange case of Philip Sheedy. Astonishingly, two senior members of the judiciary are the focus of inquiries into the handling of this criminal case. One of them is unavailable and it is likely to be several days before the inquiries can be concluded.
Meanwhile, the driver in the tragedy is back in prison, voluntarily. Though he had sworn earlier that reincarceration would be an injustice, he withdrew his opposition to the DPP to have his early release quashed and returned to Mountjoy.
The inquiries, one led by the Chief Justice, Mr Justice Hamilton, the other by the Minister for Justice, Mr O'Donoghue, must reveal how Sheedy came to be freed by Judge Cyril Kelly after serving just a quarter of his prison sentence.
A Dublin architect, Sheedy was convicted before Judge Mathews in October 1997 of dangerous driving causing death and was sentenced to four years in jail. The judge set a review date for two years' time, October 1999. This meant Sheedy had to remain in prison for half his sentence before he could hope for a release.
However, just a month later, on the advice of his lawyers, he successfully sought to have this review date set aside. From his sworn affidavits in a later hearing, Sheedy claims he did not realise the implications of this move because he had now forfeited the right to a future review.
He could, however, seek clemency through the Government, but a spokesman for the Minister for Justice confirmed that he never sought such a remedy. He also did not use his option of going to the Court of Criminal Appeal. In any event, he walked free after only a year in jail.
The kernel of the investigations is to uncover how the Sheedy case came to be listed in the Circuit Criminal Court for November 12th last, before Judge Kelly, without the knowledge of the DPP or the Garda. Because the case went directly on to the list, the Chief State Solicitor's Office was circumvented.
"An individual" has been identified as allegedly asking the Dublin County Registrar of the Circuit Criminal Court, Mr Michael Quinlan, to list the case for a specific date. This listing triggered the controversy with which the judiciary and the Government are now wrestling.
As damaging rumours sweep the political and criminal justice systems, the clamour for answers to key questions grows louder. Who ordered that his name be put on the list?
It is not unheard of for criminal cases to be listed without a formal exchange of documents between the defence and prosecution, but it is imperative that both sides be always on notice.
However, on this occasion the Chief State Solicitor's Office claims quite definitively that it was unaware of what was unfolding. In fact, the assistant Chief State Solicitor, Mr John Corcoran, told The Irish Times during the week that his office believed "a mistake" had been made when it realised four days before the hearing that DPP v Sheedy was listed.
"It was a mystery and we thought it was a mistake," Mr Corcoran said.
Fully anticipating that "the error" would be spotted in court, the Chief State Solicitor dispatched a clerk, who had no right of audience, with the Sheedy file to the court.
The then Circuit Court judge, Judge Kelly, who was elevated 12 days later to the High Court, suspended the remaining three years of Sheedy's sentence. In spite of the presence of the clerk, it is understood the Chief State Solicitor's Office was not alerted to this turn of events.
Sheedy returned to work with South Dublin County Council but, last February, was observed by a friend of the bereaved Ryan family. They were aghast and angry that he could be free after serving a quarter of the original sentence and informed the Garda which in turn alerted the DPP.
On Thursday, February 4th, a letter was sent to the Minister from Edward T. O'Connor & Co., solicitors for the late Mrs Ryan's husband, John. A copy was incorrectly sent to the governor of Shanganagh Prison: Sheedy had never spent time there but had been in Shelton Abbey.
His transfer after six months in Mountjoy to the less confined regime of Shelton Abbey has also raised the hackles of Opposition TDs who claim this is another example of Sheedy's gentle treatment at the hands of the State. However, a Department spokesman yesterday dismissed that charge.
"He was a textbook example of someone who would have been dispatched to an open centre such as Shelton Abbey to complete his sentence. That judgment was made by senior officials in the Prisons Division of the Department who took into account a number of factors. What risk did he represent to the community? What were the prospects of him running away and reoffending? Dozens of such decisions are made every week without reference to the Minister," the spokesman said.
Meanwhile, Mr O'Donoghue never saw the solicitor's letter of protest. The document was sent to the Prison Section of the Department which found no irregularities. He had been freed by the court.
Six days later, shortly before midnight on February 10th, the Attorney General, Mr David Byrne SC, rang the Minister who was attending an EU ministers' meeting in Berlin. The AG had been contacted by the DPP because the State had not got any advance notice of the application which led to Sheedy's release.
According to the Minister, the AG told him of "rumours" circulating to the effect that the failure to alert the State and the actual listing of the case "may have been brought about by improper practice (as distinct from error or omission) within the courts".
An inquiry began. A flurry of contacts followed. An initial idea from the Minister to have a criminal investigation was shelved as "premature". Instead the DPP sought, successfully, to have Judge Kelly's order quashed.
