Philip Sheedy has been granted an extension of time by Judge Joseph Mathews at Dublin Circuit Criminal Court in which to lodge an appeal against his four-year sentence for dangerous driving causing death. Judge Mathews formally refused a certificate for leave to appeal but said he hoped Sheedy's legal advisers would bring their case to the Court of Criminal Appeal without delay.
Sheedy told Judge Mathews he was "abandoned" by his former legal team after he was sentenced on October 20th, 1997, and never met them again.
Judge Mathews' decision came on the third day of the application for an extension of time and after a further two hours of legal submissions by Mr Patrick MacEntee SC for Sheedy. He was also cross-examined by Mr Peter Charleton SC for the Director of Public Prosecutions. Sheedy had sought an extension of the time in which he could lodge an appeal against his sentence which was passed on October 20th, 1997.
Applications for leave to appeal should be made within one month of sentence. The refusal of a certificate for leave is normal by the sentencing judge and does not necessarily affect the outcome. Judge Mathews said the essential matter involved should be decided in the requirements of justice. The absence of an early intention to appeal or a delay in doing that should not prevent him granting the application.
He had carefully crafted his sentence in the case in October 1997 with the intention that Sheedy serve two years with a reasonable expectation that he would get a favourable review at that time. He never intended him to serve four years, which he now faced.
In a new affidavit, Sheedy said he was never directly advised by his former legal team he could or should appeal his sentence but they had emphasised he should have a sentence review date of October 20th, 1999, removed.
Mr MacEntee submitted that matters other than that before the court were collateral and it would be "an abuse of the process to al low this application, which is purely procedural, to become a vehicle for other matters to be aired".
Mr MacEntee opened the contents of a new affidavit sworn on April 24th by Sheedy to the court, including details of correspondence between his former solicitor, Mr John F. Walsh and his present solicitor, Mr Michael Staines.
In this affidavit Sheedy said his last meeting with his former legal team was after he was sentenced in October 1997. He was not aware of any legal advice received by his father and had not authorised anyone but Mr Walsh to take instructions for him.
He was unaware of a memo made by Mr Walsh of a phone conversation in December 1997 Mr Walsh had with his father until it was brought to his attention by Mr Staines. This memo recorded Sheedy's father as insisting to Mr Walsh that neither Sheedy nor his father was interested in appealing the sentence because they did not want to go through the whole hearing again and allow themselves to be "victims of the press" again.
Sheedy said he was in shock at the sentence, as were his parents and his legal team. They said Judge Mathews must have changed his mind and they had to have the two-year review date removed as quickly as possible. Judge Mat hews acceded to that application on November 6th. Sheedy became aware he was possibly facing three years when 25 per cent remission for good behaviour was taken into consideration.
He had been anxious to have the review dropped as advised but he "categorically denied" he got advice about appealing the original sentence. Mr Walsh recorded in the memo that Sheedy's father was "abusive and aggressive" in the course of the phone conversation in December 1997, suggesting his son's legal advisers were not looking after his interests.
Sheedy said he was unaware of approaches to the authorities to have him granted temporary release but was aware of contact with the prison training officer.
His mother's cousin was deputy governor of Arbour Hill prison and he believed that contact made was to ensure his safety but had nothing to do with trying to get him early release. Sheedy wanted to confirm in his affidavit he "ne ver made any improper approaches nor authorised anyone to do that" to ensure his early release. His father did not advise him at any time that he should appeal the sentence. He decided to change his solicitors in early 1998.
Contemporaneous notes made by Sheedy's former solicitor in the file indicated some contemplation was given to an appeal at the time but his family turned this down.
Judge Mathews intervened to ask if what he called "the substantial collateral matters" should not be dealt with "in the appropriate forum". He said he believed there should be such an inquiry.
Sheedy told Mr Charleton he had put himself fully in his legal advisers' hands. Due to the "very strong advice" they gave about having the review date removed, it never entered his head to ask for an appeal. He did not know why they set such store by this action. Sheedy told Mr Charleton that after discussing it with his parents, prison officers and other prisoners, he wanted the review date restored. He had no discussion with his parents about a possible early release if the review date was removed. His parents were aware of the implications of the review being removed. At that point they decided to change solicitor.
He assumed he was brought to the court last November 12th to get a date for hearing of his application to have the review date re stored. He was not surprised to appear before Judge Cyril Kelly because he believed the application was being made to get a date before Judge Mathews. He was surprised to have been released by Judge Kelly.