The following are the texts of two letters from Mr Michael Staines, solicitor for Philip Sheedy, to the Chief Justice, both dated 12th April 1999; and a letter from Mr Justice Cyril Kelly to the Chief Justice, dated 13th April 1999. The letters form part of the annexes to the report of the Chief Justice into the early release of Philip Sheedy.
Annex 23
Michael J.Staines & Company, Solicitors
Our ref MS/NR
12th April, 1999
The Honourable Mr Chief Justice Hamilton, Office of the Chief Justice, Four Courts, Dublin 7.
Re: Philip Sheedy
Dear Chief Justice,
I enclose a copy of the report in the Sunday Times of the 11th of April, 1999, concerning the Philip Sheedy case. From the contents of the report I can only conclude that it is based largely on information and opinions furnished by members of the judiciary or court officials.
The article is misleading in a number of ways but in particular 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.
I wish to indicate that my dealings with the court officials were such that no one could reasonably have inferred or assumed from them that my firm was aware that the prosecution authorities had not been notified. Furthermore there is no basis for inferring that my firm was relied upon to notify the prosecution.
I understand that you are shortly to report to the Government concerning these matters and if the media reports are correct that you have already spoken to members of the judiciary and court officials. My purpose in writing is to make it very clear that there is no basis for any suggestion that my firm was in any way responsible for the failure of those who had this matter listed to notify the prosecution authorities. I would ask you to ensure that your report in so far as relies on statements made to you does not convey any such impression. Furthermore, in view of the wide coverage given to the attached article I would ask you to append a copy of this letter to your report. I would be very happy to meet you if you require any further elaboration of the foregoing.
Yours faithfully,
Michael J. Staines & Company
Annex 24
Michael J.Staines & Company, Solicitors
Our Ref: MS/MH
The Honourable Mr Chief Justice Hamilton, Office of the Chief Justice, Four Courts, Dublin 7
12th April 1999
Re Philip Sheedy
Dear Chief Justice,
Many thanks for giving me the opportunity to speak with you today. You have asked me to make a statement setting out all I know in relation to this particular case.
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. 1 therefore was not sure that the Sheedys wished me to act in the 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".
2. On the same day I rang Mr Sheedy's previous Solicitor, John Walsh. He in fact had been ringing me a few days before that (23rd of October 1998). He informed me that the original Senior Counsel in the case had wanted him to put in an application for review. We felt it was better that I would contact said Counsel. I spoke to the Senior Counsel.
3. From my investigations it would appear that the following occurred: (a) When the case of Philip Sheedy had been originally before Judge Cyril Kelly he had spoken to the Defence Counsel and Prosecution Counsel in Chambers and had indicated that he was going to give a suspended sentence to Mr Sheedy.
(b) The case was adjourned for actual sentence on that day. Judge Cyril Kelly was not available. Judge Joseph Matthews was taking the case. There were further discussions in his Chambers. The eventual result of these discussions were that Judge Matthews agreed that he would give Mr Sheedy a two year sentence with a review after one year.
(c) On hearing the case Judge Matthews gave Mr Sheedy a four year sentence with a review after two years.
(d) This caused huge consternation to the Sheedy family and indeed to his legal advisers.
4. I then contacted Philip Sheedy's parents and saw them on the 30/10/98. 1 explained that before I could act in this matter I would need written instructions from their son Philip who was in Shelton Abbey and also that on receipt of these written instructions that I would have to go down and see him in Shelton Abbey. I am quite happy to divulge the contents of my conversations with Mr and Mrs Sheedy provided my client is prepared to waive any privilege that may attach thereto.
5. On the 2/11/98 I received written instructions from Philip Sheedy to represent him in future proceedings connected with his sentence.
6. There were several phone calls back and forth between myself and Michael Quinlan and in each case one or the other of us was out of our office and could not speak.
7. Finally on the 4/11/99 I spoke to Mr Quinlan. I told him that I had instructions to represent Mr Sheedy. He confirmed that he would contact me once he had the date arranged for the hearing of an application. He referred me to a case of the DPP v Paul McDonald which was an ex-tempore 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.
During our discussions this morning after I had outlined what had happened in the case I asked you whether there were any allegations differing with what I had outlined to you. You read to me an extract from a letter that Michael Quinlan had written to you. In the course of that letter Mr Quinlan referred to this conversation above and said that he had specifically informed me that I should inform the State of the listing of this case.
I would like to say here and now that under no circumstances did Michael Quinlan or any other member of the Circuit Court ever inform me either in that conversation or in any other conversation that I should inform the State. Indeed at that stage the date had not even been chosen by Michael Quinlan. Furthermore, I would like to reiterate that at no stage did I pick the particular date nor did I suggest to anybody that I wanted Judge Cyril Kelly to hear the application. Indeed, it was my view that the only Judge competent to hear an application to re-instate a review date that was vacated was the actual sentencing Judge (i.e. Judge Joseph Matthews).
8. On or around this date of the 4/11/99 my assistant received a phone call from a Circuit Court Official called Mary who indicated that the case of Philip Sheedy had been listed for review of sentence for Thursday the 12/11/98 and that Philip Sheedy was in Shelton Abbey.
9. On the 6/I1/98 (Friday) I had a further consultation with Mr Sheedy Senior, again I am quite prepared to divulge the contents of this consultation if Mr Sheedy release me from Solicitor/Client privilege.
10. On that date I asked my assistant to brief Luigi Rea BL in the case.
11. On the 10/11/98 I went down myself to Shelton Abbey when I had a long discussion with Mr Sheedy, again I am prepared to divulge the contents of this discussion if Mr Sheedy waives Solicitor/Client privilege.
12. On the next day Luigi Rea BL and my assistant attended a consultation with Mr Sheedy Senior and other character witnesses.
13. On the next day, 12/11/98, Judge Kelly dealt with the case. There is a transcript available as to what occurred. I was not in Court and Mr Luigi Rea BL was attended by my assistant. Mr Philip Sheedy was released by Judge Cyril Kelly.
14. 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.
15. What happened thereafter is a matter of public record. The State obtained a Judicial Review. I briefed Aileen Donnelly BL and on the instructions of the client Michael McDowell SC. On the basis of pain-staking instructions taken from Mr Sheedy and his family an Affidavit was prepared which Mr Sheedy swore. The case came up for mention on the 15/3/99 when we were granted a week to put in a Replying Affidavit and on the 22/3/99 the High Court fixed the 25/3/99 for the hearing of the case. Mr McDowell was already engaged in another case and could not act. On our client's instructions we briefed Patrick MacEntee SC. Our intention at all times was to oppose the State's application. On the morning of the 25/3/99 Mr MacEntee gave certain advice as a result of which we decided to withdraw our opposition. Rather than be arrested and handcuffed in the full glare of publicity Mr Sheedy decided that he would go up to Mountjoy and await the Order of the Court. I am prepared to give other details of the advice and discussions provided my client releases me from Solicitor/Client privilege.
16. You will be aware of the outcry both in the media and in the Dail about the Sheedy case. I felt it was better not to make any comment or any statement and have held this view until the llth of April 1999. On that day I read an article in the Sunday Times. I have referred to that article in the first letter I have written to you. It seems to me that for the first time allegations were being made about my handling of the case. In the course of the article in the Sunday Times it stated "according to a Dail statement by John O'Donoghue Justice Minister, Sheedy's Solicitor was expected to inform the DPP's office that the case was coming up". I was not aware that John O'Donoghue made any such statement in the Dail and I am presently checking that position. This was the first indication I had that my competence was being called into question. I therefore wrote you the first letter that I delivered to you this morning.
17. The first confirmation I have that any allegations were being made about me was when you read out the letter written to you by Michael Quinlan. I again reiterate that I was never informed that I should contact the Prosecution Authorities. Mr Quinlan himself had arranged the listing of the case and I assumed that the Prosecution would have been notified in exactly the same way that I was notified. As you will see from Mr Sheedy's Affidavit Mr Rea asked him to point out any prosecution witnesses or any Gardai that were in the Court when the case was being mentioned on the 12th of November 1998.
I believed that the Prosecution had been notified in the usual way by the Circuit Court Authorities.
18. I was very bemused when I received the original phone call from Michael Quinlan. This was the first time in my twenty years of practice that I received such a phone call from a Court Official. Having investigated the matter I came to the conclusion that Judge Mathews himself felt that he had not kept to his agreement in Chambers or perhaps because, the matter having been raised with him afresh that Judge Mathews was prepared to re-instate the review and perhaps bring it back to an earlier date.
19. You will note that the case of Philip Sheedy is now listed before the Circuit Criminal Court on the 19th of April 1999 for an application to be made before Judge Mathews for (a) an application for a Certificate for leave to Appeal against severity of sentence.
Signed: Michael Staines
Annex 26
Mr Justice Liam Hamilton, Chief Justice, Supreme Court, Four Courts, Dublin 7.
13th April 1999.
Re: D.P.P. v Philip Sheedy
Dear Chief Justice,
I refer to our meeting of this morning and to the letter of Michael Staines which you made available to me.
I wish to make to clear that at no time have I had any contact with Mr Michael Staines in relation to this matter. In so far as this letter attributes conduct or knowledge on my part that information arises from sources other than myself.
I wish to emphasise again that I had no prior knowledge whatsoever of the listing arrangements in relation to this case. The suggestion by Mr Staines that I was "awaiting an application for review" is untrue.
In so far as there is a suggestion that at the original hearing date I had a conversation in Chambers with both Counsel in this case this did not occur.
In so far as Mr Staines suggests that it was his professional view that, on the subsequent date, this case should be listed before Judge Matthews rather than myself this view was not made known to me at the time I dealt with this matter or subsequently.
I recollect that I subsequently met Mr Rea, BL, informally, who commented to me that the expert report on file was not up to date. I suggested to Mr Rea, BL that he should consider obtaining an up to date medical report.
In so far as the letter of Mr Staines purports to deal with other persons I am not in a position to comment in relation to them.
I wish to state that essential inquiries which I consider necessary to be made on foot of Mr Staines letter can not be carried out in the time frame of a few hours that has been available to me to comment on this letter. I believe that these inquiries would have a material bearing on this matter.
I should be glad to provide you with any further assistance you may consider appropriate.
Yours sincerely,
Cyril C. Kelly