The deputy leader of Fine Gael, Mrs Nora Owen, caused a sensation in the Dail yesterday when she spoke of invoking a section of the Constitution to deal with the controversial matters raised by the Sheedy case.
Article 35.4.1 of the Constitution states: "A judge of the High Court or the Supreme Court shall not be removed from office save for stated misbehaviour or incapacity and then only on a resolution of both Houses of the Oireachtas."
Suddenly, we were in uncharted waters. The Article had never been used before. For more than 60 years, politicians had minded their own business and paid deference to the separation of powers and the power of the courts.
But now, in the interests of justice - and transparency - politicians were kicking over the traces.
The Fine Gael spokesman on justice, Mr Jim Higgins, put it bluntly: "We will not be fobbed off by excuses about judicial independence. This goes beyond judicial independence. It goes right to the core of the credibility of the judicial system."
The issue was so grave that unless a satisfactory explanation was forthcoming they would have to seek to invoke the constitutional Article. In the Sheedy case, he went on, "a coach and four has been driven through time-honoured procedures".
We were now in an era of freedom of information, transparency and accountability, said Mr Higgins. Somebody in the pyramid of responsibility and accountability in the courts and judicial system had made certain decisions in relation to the Sheedy case. They must know who made the decisions, when they were made and why they were made.
Twenty-two questions were submitted to the Minister for Justice to elicit that information. Fine Gael wanted to know how Philip Sheedy, who had been sentenced to four years' imprisonment in 1997 for killing a woman while driving under the influence of drink, had been released by the courts after only one year.
The case had been listed for rehearing in the Circuit Court in an irregular fashion; the Director of Public Prosecutions and the Garda had not been told and were not represented; and the sentence had been suspended by Judge Cyril Kelly.
The DPP appealed against the decision last Thursday on the grounds that Judge Kelly should not have taken the case and it should have been dealt with by the Court of Criminal Appeal or the High Court.
The appeal by the DPP was not challenged. And, in an extraordinary development, Sheedy voluntarily presented himself for readmission to Mountjoy Jail. Eyebrows were also raised when Mr Justice Kelly was not represented in court to provide an explanation for his actions.
The deputy leader of the Labour Party, Mr Brendan Howlin, was more circumspect than Fine Gael in his approach. Although he regarded the train of events leading to Sheedy's early release as "at best peculiar and, at worst, quite sinister", Mr Howlin was a long way from hitting the constitutional panic button.
He said all documents in the proceedings should be placed before the Dail, and the Minister for Justice, Mr O'Donoghue, should explain how the Sheedy case had been relisted for an inappropriate review of sentence, without proper notice to the DPP and before the wrong judge.
If they expected answers from Mr Frank Fahey, Mr O'Donoghue's junior colleague at the Department of Justice, they were to be disappointed. True to form, the Department kicked for touch. Investigations (unspecified) were under way. In view of the very serious suggestions which had been made concerning the circumstances of the hearing, and in fairness to all concerned, Mr Fahey appealed for time to complete the investigations.
It was the kind of milk-and-watery response you would expect, yet times are changing. The opposition parties will not easily let go of this extraordinary case.