Does anybody now remember the Anthony Duncan crisis? The crisis that almost brought down a government. A "head" was called for then, a ministerial head as it happens.
Does anybody remember the Dominic Lynch crisis? A head was called for: in fact two heads were called for. It was said that if these heads were spared "we will have to abandon the idea of there being political accountability ever again in this country. Democracy will have been irretrievably demeaned".
How many people remember the John Anthony Duggan crisis? In that, two prominent heads were delivered up and a government fell because of it and a government in the making collapsed over it.
The John Anthony Duggan crisis was what led to the forced resignation of Harry Whelehan from the Presidency of the High Court. It also led to the forced resignation of Albert Reynolds as Taoiseach and the fall of his government. Further, it led to the collapse of the planned Bertie Ahern-Dick Spring government in December 1994. And what was the John Anthony Duggan crisis about? Nothing at all.
The Dominic Lynch crisis was about botched arrangements concerning judges on the Special Criminal Court. Judge Lynch, at his own request, was officially relieved of his responsibilities on the court and the Department of Justice forgot to inform him. The heads demanded at that time were those of the then minister for justice, Nora Owen, and the then attorney general, Dermot Gleeson.
And the person who talked about us having "to abandon the idea of there being political accountability ever again in this country" and of "democracy irretrievably demeaned" was the present Minister for Justice, John O'Donoghue.
And the Anthony Duncan crisis? That occurred in May 1996 and concerned a cock-up over the handling of an extradition warrant. Nora Owen's resignation was demanded. Fianna Fail thought for a week or so that the rainbow government was about to fall.
The present excitation over the Sheedy affair has more substance than some of the earlier ones. But the substance has to do solely with the following: that the case was disposed of in the Circuit Criminal Court by Judge Cyril Kelly in the absence of the representation of the DPP; that there was an alleged attempt to "fix" the case file subsequently; and that a Department of Justice inquiry into the affair was misled.
Nothing else of consequence arises from the affair. The improper listing of the case before the Circuit Criminal Court would not have been an issue had the DPP been represented, for presumably counsel for the DPP would have objected to Judge Kelly hearing the appeal against sentence and, had that objection been overruled, presumably a judicial review of the decision would have been sought.
But apart from these factors, what is the Sheedy affair about? What is it, for instance, that Hugh O'Flaherty did wrong? Even if we accept that he was responsible for having the case listed in November last (and he emphatically denies that he sought to have the case listed), what would have been wrong with that?
Philip Sheedy was entitled by law to have a reconsideration of his sentence and he could have achieved that by a simple application. Indeed had he gone the conventional route he would have had the sentence reviewed by the Court of Criminal Appeal, probably presided over by Hugh O'Flaherty.
So what was it that forced the resignation in disgrace of Hugh O'Flaherty as judge of the Supreme Court, apart from the extraordinary indictment of him by his colleague, the Chief Justice, Mr Justice Hamilton? Are the media and the political establishment incapable of discerning what is fair and unfair in an indictment even from such an eminent and unimpeachable authority?
In a few years' time, even a few months' time, will many of us be able to recall what it was precisely that forced the resignation of Hugh O'Flaherty? Or if we are, will we be able to explain how such an innocent and inconsequential intervention in the Sheedy affair should have had such calamitous impact on the career of a distinguished judge?
This is all part of the vulgarisation of our public affairs: indifference to what matters and obsession with triviality.
How is there no focus on the unfairness of the criminal justice system as a whole? In a survey of the system, Crime and Poverty in Ireland by Ivana Bacik and Michael O'Connell, published last year, it was found that "people from the poorest 20 per cent of communities in the Dublin region were almost 12 times more likely to find themselves as defendants in the District Court compared to those in the 20 per cent least deprived communities".
They also found that "those from more deprived communities who were convicted were significantly more likely to receive custodial sentences than those from better-off areas". They continued: "This signals the possibility of a serious sentencing bias against the poor in the Irish judicial system.
"One might be forgiven for suggesting on the basis of the data [which they produced] that the Dublin District Court system appears to be therefor people from deprived areas."
Isn't this indictment of the criminal justice system far more serious than anything that has emerged over the Sheedy affair? How is it that no attention is paid to it?
There are other reasons to be concerned about the justice system we operate. For instance, the power of wealth within it. As has been noted, the courts are open to all, just like the Ritz. But if you cannot pay, your chances of getting justice in civil cases are significantly impaired. Is this not more serious than anything the Sheedy affair?
Because of the resignation of Hugh O'Flaherty and the imminent retirement on grounds of age of four other members of the eight-member Supreme Court (Mr Justices Hamilton, Barrington, Lynch and Barron are due to go by the end of the year), there is to be a transformation of that court. Not since the State was founded has the powerhouse of the judicial system undergone such a transformation.
And yet the five new appointees will be chosen in secret by the Government, without any public evaluation of their appropriateness or any scrutiny of how they might exercise their very considerable powers. How is it that such a massive lacuna in our democratic system goes largely unremarked upon?
Meanwhile, we are to have weeks of Oireachtas inquisition into matters either that we know already about the Sheedy affair or that essentially do not matter.