In an affidavit, Philip Sheedy, the Dublin-based architect who returned voluntarily to prison after his sentence was controversially suspended, claimed that it would render him "an injustice" if he were to be re-incarcerated.
The affidavit was presented last week to the High Court, which quashed a decision by Judge Cyril Kelly to suspend three years of Sheedy's four-year sentence. It was placed before the Dail yesterday.
Sheedy argued in the affidavit that he had made every effort to reintegrate himself into society since he was released by Judge Kelly last November, and should not be returned to jail. But he withdrew his opposition to an application by the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) and readmitted himself to Mountjoy.
In his affidavit he says that if he was re-imprisoned he might be denied the opportunity to apply for leave to appeal because of the time-lapse since his sentence was imposed.
Sheedy was sentenced to four years in prison by Judge Joseph Mathews in October 1997 after pleading guilty to drunk and dangerous driving. A young Dublin mother, Mrs Anne Ryan, was killed when struck by the car Sheedy was driving.
Judge Mathews set a review date of October 1999 but, three weeks later, set this aside at the request of Sheedy's legal team.
On November 12th, 1998, Judge Cyril Kelly suspended the balance of the sentence imposed by Judge Mathews. Sheedy was subsequently seen by a friend of the Ryan family and the matter was reported to the Garda, who informed the DPP.
The DPP was granted a judicial review of Judge Kelly's decision. In his affidavit, the DPP said the judge had acted in excess of jurisdiction in purporting to vary the prison sentence, and that the case was never properly before him. He had also acted in excess of jurisdiction by varying the sentence previously imposed by another judge of the Circuit Court, it was argued.
According to Sheedy's affidavit, he was in "considerable shock" after the four-year prison sentence was imposed. After sentence he was visited by his legal team.
He was advised that an application should be made to have the review date deleted and believed he had "no option" but to agree to such an application. He was called to the office of the governor of the training unit at Glengariff Parade and told it had been lifted, and "he indicated his surprise to me".
Sheedy later changed his solicitor and retained his present solicitor, Mr Michael Staines, from the beginning of 1998. A spokeswoman for Mr Staines said yesterday he did not wish to comment.
After studying the affidavits with legal advisers, Labour's justice spokesman, Mr Brendan Howlin, said serious questions remained.
"On the face of it, Mr Sheedy appeared to have a very arguable case to make in reply to the Director of Public Prosecutions. It is argued on behalf of Mr Sheedy that nothing happened in this case that was unusual in the Dublin Circuit Criminal Court," he said.
"Specifically, Mr Sheedy argues that it was a normal occurrence for a defence solicitor to apply for the reinstatement of a provision for the review of a sentence together with an application to have the review date brought forward. He claims also that, unless the DPP objects, it is not improper for one judge to review a sentence imposed by another."
It was all the more surprising that his case was withdrawn before it was argued in the High Court last Thursday, said Mr Howlin.
He said the documents did not, however, cast light on some of the most serious aspects.
They did not show why the DPP's office did not receive notice that the case had been listed for review of sentence before Judge Kelly. They did not explain how the case came to be listed in the first instance.
"There are obviously further questions that need to be answered and the Minister for Justice must provide full and frank answers to these questions put to him by the Opposition in Dail Eireann," he added.
Fine Gael's justice spokesman, Mr Jim Higgins, said he would insist that Mr O'Donoghue participate in a question-and-answer session today rather than simply deliver a set statement.