1. The presidents of the High Court and Circuit Court have
investigated as a matter of urgency a report in the Sunday
Times of 3 November, 2013 which suggested that a judge of the
Circuit Court had “tried to meddle in family case”. Any
allegation of this nature is of grave concern to the judiciary
generally and, in this instance, of particular concern to the
judges of the Circuit Court.
2. The case to which the report relates was a family law case,
heard and conducted in camera, which creates strict limitations
on what may now be said in relation to any aspect of the case
itself. We are satisfied no such limitation would arise in
relation to an approach of the kind suggested in the newspaper
report
3. The president of the High Court sought from Judge Abbott an
account of any conversation or other communication which gave
rise to the apprehension that there had been improper
interference in the manner described in the article. Judge
Abbott’s recollection was to the effect that, some short few
days after a ruling delivered by him on 21 July, 2010, he had
encountered Judge Desmond Hogan in the yard of the Four Courts
building. In the course of a casual conversation Judge Hogan
asked was it true that he had made a particular order in the
case in question, a query to which Judge Abbott took exception
and dealt with by saying that the reasons for his decision
would be detailed in a written judgment in due course. The same
was later delivered on 26 July, 2011. The making of this
inquiry to Judge Abbott was the subject of certain questions
put by Judge Abbott of one of the parties during a later
hearing on 15 February, 2013 and was subsequently referred to
by Judge Abbott in his ruling on 12 July, 2013.
4. The president of the Circuit Court separately sought from Judge
Hogan a response to this account. Judge Hogan stated that at
this remove in time he is unable to recall the conversation or
how he came by the information that a particular ruling had
been made in July 2010. He would not dispute that he may have
asked Judge Abbott in a casual way about the case. However,
Judge Hogan is satisfied that he had no solicitation or request
to that end from any politician or from any party involved in
or connected with the case in any way. There had been
absolutely no intention of interfering with the case or
influencing its outcome in any way and he deeply regrets that
his query may have given rise to any such apprehension.
5. The raising of the matter in question, which should not have
occurred, could not have influenced Judge Abbott in his ruling
of 21 July, 2010 as it was made in the aftermath of that
ruling. We are also satisfied, as indeed verified by Judge
Abbott, that the conversation of July, 2010 (which was one
lasting less than one minute) had no effect when 3 years later
he delivered a further ruling on 12 July 2013.