Former judges may be forced to explain actions

The Government is considering legislation to allow an Oireachtas Committee to compel the two resigned judges at the centre of…

The Government is considering legislation to allow an Oireachtas Committee to compel the two resigned judges at the centre of the Sheedy affair to explain why they took the actions they did.

Today the committee will invite the two former judges and the former senior court official who resigned after the publication of reports into their handling of the Sheedy case to come and explain their actions.

The chairman of the Oireachtas Committee on Justice, Equality and Women's Rights, Mr Eoin Ryan, will write to Mr Hugh O'Flaherty, Mr Cyril Kelly and Mr Michael Quinlan asking if they wish to avail of an opportunity to appear before the committee and answer questions on a specified day.

Last Friday, before his resignation, Mr O'Flaherty suggested that he could appear before the committee to discuss his handling of the case. It is not known whether this offer remains open in the wake of his resignation.

READ MORE

Marking growing political frustration at the apparent powerlessness of the Government and the Oireachtas to find out why the Sheedy case was handled as it was, the Fine Gael leader, Mr John Bruton, yesterday demanded that the payment of pensions to the former judges be made conditional on their agreeing to explain their actions to the Oireachtas.

He focused in particular on Mr Kelly, calling his actions in the case and his failure to explain why he took these actions "a disgrace".

Mr Kelly presided at the hearing at which three years of Philip Sheedy's four-year sentence for drunk driving causing death were suspended.

Mr Bruton said his party would oppose the payment of a pension to Mr Kelly until he gave an assurance which would explain his actions. The Government agreed to pay Mr Kelly a pension of £30,000 per annum during discussions earlier this week, but this is subject to approval by the Dail.

He said that Mr Kelly's "misdemeanours" were far more serious than those of Mr O'Flaherty or Mr Quinlan. "I believe that what Mr Kelly did was a disgrace, and his failure to explain why he did it is a further disgrace and the Minister's failure to get answers is a further disgrace."

Referring to Mr Kelly, Mr Bruton said: "We know what he did, we don't know why. Was there pressure put on him?" He suggested he should provide a list of everyone to whom he spoke in relation to the case.

In an attempt to put pressure on the Progressive Democrats on the issue, Mr Bruton said he could not see how that party could support the legislation to approve the pensions without first insisting on having the outstanding questions answered. The Labour Party leader, Mr Ruairi Quinn, said he presumed they would come to give evidence voluntarily but if any refused, legislation could be amended to compel them to come.

The Taoiseach, Mr Ahern, indicated yesterday he would consider amending legislation if necessary to allow the Oireachtas committee to compel the two former judges to attend. Currently judges and former judges are exempt from the power of Oireachtas committees to compel witnesses to attend.

A Government spokesman said yesterday: "If the Committee needs extra muscle and request it, we will look at that."

A spokesman for the Department of Justice said yesterday that a decision as to who would pay costs in cases which were heard by the two judges before their resignations was one to be made by the courts themselves in individual cases.

Departmental sources said that while there was no automatic entitlement to costs in such cases, they were treated "very sympathetically".