Lettters between Laffoy and Dempsey show a deteriorating relationship, writes Liam Reid
The correspondence between Ms Justice Mary Laffoy and the Minister for Education reveal a fractious relationship, marked by serious disagreement over the future of the child abuse commission.
Despite Mr Dempsey's statements of surprise and shock over the judge's resignation, the letters contain key warnings from the judge about the damage the review process was causing to the commission's ability to carry out its work.
The published correspondence begin with a letter from Mr Dempsey in December 2002 outlining the Government's plans for a review, and agreeing to her request for additional resources to expedite her inquiry, on a short-term basis.
In her response, Ms Justice Laffoy accuses the Government of placing the inquiry in "an impossible position".
She said that while the Government's decision "gives the appearance" of granting the extra funding, its short-term basis amounted effectively to a refusal.
She goes as far as to say that "the only reasonable inference" from that decision and the review was that there was "a significant possibility" that the remit of the inquiry would be substantially reduced.
The judge was also presciently sceptical of the Government meeting its own February deadline for the review. Its previous experience with Government delays "does not give it great confidence".
Despite the warning, the Government continued with its review and on July 4th, Mr Dempsey informs the judge of plans for a second, more extensive review of the commission's work. This would not be completed before the conclusion of the Christian Brothers' High Court challenge which could have "a substantial effect" on the number of cases before the Commission.
The letter also sought information from the commission about the nature of the complaints it was investigating.
In her response, Ms Justice Laffoy agreed to the Government's request for information.
However, she said it was "now clear" to the commission that the investigation committee would not implement its current remit, and that the changes to its remit "will not be finally determined until 2004 at the earliest".
She revealed that as a result of the continuing uncertainty, since December 2002 the work of the investigation committee in terms of evidential hearings and discovery orders had been effectively suspended.
She urged the Government to make public its intentions regarding the future of the inquiry, because of issues of justice for the complainants and the accused.
This letter also gives a clue that senior staff at the inquiry may leave because of the review, in looking for advance warning of any public statement from the minister.
"The commission would be anxious to adequately prepare for reactions both from the public and its own personnel," the letter concludes.
On July 15th, the minister wrote to assure the judge that the review "will not encompass any changes that will limit or reduce the remit of the commission in investigating the responsibility of the State and, in particular, the Department of Education in respect of abuse in institutions".
In her response, the judge fundamentally disagrees. "It is also the view of the commission that, notwithstanding the assurance given in your letter . . . the commission is hampered in advancing its inquiry into the responsibility of the State for abuse in institutions."
The reason for this was that it was impossible to separate the inquiry into the State from that into individual institutions, which was the focus of the review.
By August 18th, she again wrote to Mr Dempsey, telling him the commission was meeting to discuss the matter. "In these circumstances I need to know by 10 a.m. tomorrow whether it is intended to make a public statement, and if so when," she wrote.
Following that meeting, she wrote again indicating the commission would be taking serious action if and when a public statement was made. These steps would be necessary to guard against allegations of abuse of process in the future, and to prevent against the accrual of unnecessary costs.
On August 28th, Mr Dempsey informed Ms Justice Laffoy of an imminent announcement by letter, enclosing a draft press release.
Her response was telling: "While it is not proposed to comment on the views expressed in the press release now, that is not to be taken as a tacit acceptance by the commission . . . that those views are correct."
In her last letter to Mr Dempsey, she also effectively shuts down consultation "on the basis of legal advice".