Mr Hugh O'Flaherty's interview has refocused attention on the Sheedy affair, not just his involvement in it, and highlights the questions that remain unanswered.
He drew attention to the fact that the review date had been set aside, and he gave this as the reason for offering advice on how the case could be re-entered on the lists.
However, it was Mr Sheedy's own defence team which sought to have the review date set aside. There are various reasons it might do so. The main one is that, by setting a review date for two years later, the court had ensured that he would serve at least two years.
This ruled out the possibility of early release either through the revolving-door system that operated due to prison overcrowding, or through a petition.
An early release through either of these routes did not materialise, so Mr Sheedy's family sought to have the sentence reviewed.
A casual encounter in October 1998 between a member of the family and Mr O'Flaherty opened the way for the case to be relisted and the balance of the sentence suspended by Mr Justice Kelly on November 12th, 1998. Mr Sheedy had served just over a year.
However, the State was unaware that the review date had been vacated, and had not been expecting the case to come up again for two years.
In his letter to the chief justice, Mr Liam Hamilton, Mr Sheedy's solicitor, Mr Michael Staines, said he received a call from the county registrar, Mr Michael Quinlan, on or about October 28th asking him when he was going to put in an application for review.
However, Mr Staines was not the solicitor on record to the court at that stage.
While he was approached informally by Mr Sheedy snr the previous December, the solicitor dealing with the case was Mr John Walsh.
It was not until November 2nd that Mr Staines received written instructions from Mr Sheedy. It is not clear why Mr Quinlan thought Mr Staines had any involvement in the case when he contacted him, unless he had been told by Mr O'Flaherty that the Sheedy family was oing to engage Mr Staines.
Mr Quinlan has said he has put the case behind him and moved on in his life, and has no wish to discuss it.
The reopening of the controversy also refocuses attention on Mr Cyril Kelly, who suspended the balance of the sentence during a brief hearing.
He cited a psychological report and his concern for the mental condition of the accused "at the moment". As Mr Hamilton pointed out, there was no new psychological report on the file, and those which existed had been seen by the original sentencing judge.