The report of the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform, released yesterday, opens with a short background and summary section, as follows:
Brief background information
1.1 Rumours began to circulate in early February to the general effect that improprieties may have arisen in connection with the relisting and handling of the case of D.P.P.-v-Sheedy in the Circuit Court on 12 November, 1998.
1.2 The Attorney General, following a request from the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform asked the Chief Justice to initiate an inquiry into the actions of Judges whose part in the matter needed to be clarified. The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform ordered an immediate inquiry by his Department into the actions of Court Officials who had played a part in the management of the case. His initial decision was that a Garda investigation should be instituted but the advice then received was that that would have been premature as there was no actual complaint of criminal conduct at the time. As far as was known, there were unsubstantiated rumours and nothing beyond that.
1.3 The inquiries conducted by the Department have given rise to consequential correspondence and contact with persons other than Court Officials, in particular with the Chief State Solicitors Office. While these are referred to in this Report, it is not a matter for the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, nor for his Department to offer any observations, one way or the other on the handling of the case generally by that Office.
Summary of findings
1.4 We wish to begin by acknowledging that there are undoubtedly many questions as to what happened in this case to which we do not have answers at this time. We also wish to make it clear that it has not been possible to resolve points of difference between individual accounts of what took place. To do this, it would be necessary, in order to secure even the minimum standard of fairness, to confront each individual with the issues on which there is conflict, to allow examination and cross examination and to form view only when this process had been completed.
1.5 We have been able to reach certain conclusions, however, in relation to the central issues we examined and we believe that one of these is so serious that an immediate Report must be made, even if it is the case that the Report taken as a whole, leaves questions unanswered that will, no doubt, be raised in the period ahead.
1.6 We have concluded that the action of all officials bar one, were carried out bona fide, in the course of the performance of what they took to be their proper duties and that no case for disciplinary actions arises. In the case of the most senior official involved however, we conclude that his performance in general but, in particular, in connection with the official level inquiry, fell well short of the standards that can reasonably be expected of a person holding the position of County Registrar.
Recommendations
We make recommendations ranging from required institutional and procedural changes in the Courts to the method of appointment of County Registrars. The primary recommendations relate to the integrity of court officials and judicial conduct and ethics. We recommend that specific aspects of Circuit Criminal Court procedure, highlighted by the Sheedy case, be referred to the Committee on Court Practice and Procedure for urgent consideration. In addition, we recommend that the Committee be requested to carry out an urgent examination of the practice and procedure in the criminal courts generally. We further recommend that, in the light of recent events, priority should be given in the legislative programme to placing a Parole Board on a statutory basis and that the opportunity should be taken in that context to clarify the law as to the respective roles of the courts and the Executive in the imposition, administration and review of sentences.