When the Government responds to Ms Justice Laffoy's letter, watch out for red herrings, writes Mark Brennock
One element that may feature in the Government's response to Ms Justice Laffoy's resignation letter is the July 31st Supreme Court judgement in the Meenan case.
The Government has been making much of this. The Minister for Education, Mr Dempsey, suggested this week that it was relevant, while the Taoiseach suggested on Friday that people read the judgement, without saying why this would be a useful exercise.
Government sources have implied that it shows the commission itself has contributed to the current mess through adopting legally dodgy procedures, and that it has broad implications for the conduct of the child abuse investigation.
Those who take the Taoiseach's advice, however, will see that this appears to be a red herring. Professor Patrick Meenan (86) was asked to give evidence to the Laffoy Commission on the issue of vaccination trials carried out in children's homes in the early 1960s.
This issue was referred to the commission by the Government some time after it had been set up to investigate the sexual and physical abuse of children in religious-run institutions.
Prof Meenan's solicitors argued with the commission that due to his age and state of health, he should not be obliged to give evidence. When the commission then ordered Prof Meenan to attend a hearing to determine whether or not he should indeed be excused on age and health grounds, he went to the courts.
In upholding Prof Meenan's case, the Supreme Court was strongly critical of the commission for not treating Prof Meenan with sufficient sensitivity.
In particular, Mr Justice Hardiman described the commission's dealings with the professor, who was not accused of any wrongdoing, as "sudden, cavalier and unreasoned".
However, the judgement of the Chief Justice, Mr Justice Keane, indicates that he ruled in favour of Prof Meenan's case specifically because he was to be a witness in relation to the vaccine trials. The Chief Justice said that there was no evidence presented that the vaccine trials led to any child abuse. Therefore it was not clear how the commission could use powers to call witnesses - given to it for the specific purpose of inquiring into child abuse - in this case.
Indeed the Chief Justice made it clear that he was not ruling on the remit of the Laffoy Commission in general, indicating the ruling may not have any great implications for the broader child abuse inquiry, where many of those accused of abuse may also be old and in poor health.
However, scrutiny of the judgement reveals implicit criticism of the Government for deciding to refer the vaccine trials issue to the Laffoy Commission in the first place.
Mr Justice Keane said that the vaccine trials "appear to have only the most tenuous connection, if any, with the appalling social evil of the sexual and physical abuse of children in institutions, which was the specific area into which the commission was established to inquire".