Whatever the report of the Chief Justice has to say about the Sheedy case, the public will have been left with the impression that people can receive better treatment from the courts if they move in the same circles as members of the judiciary.
In fact, several mechanisms were open to Philip Sheedy to secure an early release or reduction of his sentence, which, at four years, was higher than normal for people convicted of dangerous driving, causing death.
In any case, he would not have served the whole of his sentence, as he was likely to benefit from his statutory entitlement to 35 per cent remission. He also might have benefited from the "revolving door" system, under which prisoners are released early for no other reason than pressure on prison space.
His first option in having the sentence reduced was to appeal against the severity of the sentence to the Court of Criminal Appeal. This would leave him open to the danger of an increase in sentence, although, in the light of the average sentences for this type of offence, this was not likely. There is a time-limit of 21 days in which to lodge an appeal, though there can be an application for an extension.
A second option is a direct petition to the Minister for Justice for mitigation of sentence. This power is now very rarely exercised. Some years ago a case was successfully taken against Mrs Maire Geoghegan-Quinn, then minister for justice, by a district justice whose sentences (usually fines) had frequently been overturned. As a result, successive ministers have been more cautious in their exercise of this privilege.
If a review date has been set, as it was in this case, an application can be made to bring forward the review date or set it aside, and apply for a review of sentence. Within a month an application was made to have the review date set aside, but it appears that no application was made at this stage to have a new date set or review the sentence.
Some months after this, at the beginning of last year, Sheedy decided to change his solicitor and engaged Mr Michael Staines, whom he described as "more experienced in criminal law". Mr Staines has one of the largest criminal law practices in the State.
According to Sheedy's affidavit, Mr Staines then started to act for him in relation to his sentence and in November told him the case was listed for hearing on November 12th and that he was seeking to reinstate the review while bringing forward the review date.
It is the job of a solicitor to get his client's case into the law lists, by written application to the relevant court office. This is combined with notice to the other party, in this case the Chief State Solicitor, who acts for the Director of Public Prosecutions, and who is there to defend the interests of the State and the public.
One of the questions which has to be answered in this case is whether notice was sent to the Chief State Solicitor's office, and what happened to it, as officials there appeared to be unaware of it.
When an application is made for listing it joins the queue. The actual lists are drawn up by the County Registrar on the basis of these applications. Judges normally have very little input into this, though the presidents of the various courts do try to allocate cases, once listed, in a way which will ensure they are heard in as efficient a manner as possible.
One of the questions likely to be addressed by Mr Justice Hamilton is whether this normal listing procedure operated in this case.
Once the case comes up both sides make their submissions, and the judge makes his decision. Apparently the staff in the CSS office were unaware the review date had been lifted and thought the listing was a mistake, so there was no solicitor or barrister representing the DPP in this case.
However, it remains unclear why the clerk from this office did not ask one of the barristers already in court, possibly even one appearing for the office in another case, to seek an adjournment, even for 15 minutes, until they had had an opportunity to take instructions.
Despite psychological reports expressing grave concern about his state of mind, Sheedy is now back in jail, following the DPP's embarking on judicial review proceedings of the sentence review. He is in Shelton Abbey open prison, which has a very relaxed regime. He had been there before for six months, and inmates can, and do sometimes, work normally outside the prison on day-release.
This whole episode now appears to have started with a conversation on a footpath between Mr Justice Hugh O'Flaherty and one of his neighbours, who was in the company of Mr Sheedy's sister. The incident, and the discussion it has generated, have caused grave disquiet in legal circles, which are under scrutiny as never before. "Once someone is appointed to a higher court they should never talk about the law to anyone," said one barrister.
Whatever the outcome of the report, it will be difficult to dispel the impression that social class and who people know can have an impact on their treatment by the justice system.