Tag Archives: susan denham

Images from retired Chief Justice Susan Denham’s report into Mr Justice Seamus Woulfe’s attendance at an Oireachtas golf outing and dinner in August, showing how two suites were separated by a retractable, partition wall at the Station House Hotel in Clifden, Co Galway

This evening.

Retired Chief Justice Susan Denham’s report into Mr Justice Seamus Woulfe’s attendance at an Oireachtas golf outing in August has been published.

Mr Justice Woulfe told the retired judge that he sat at table 5 in the Omey Suite and sat with his back to the partition wall. He said he did not notice there was a second suite behind the wall.

From the report:

Mr Justice Woulfe stated that during the dinner he was not aware of, and had no reason to believe that, the event consisted of any diners other than those he could see in his dining room. He said he was not conscious of another room of diners in the hotel or any other room connected to the Oireachtas Golf Society.

All of the people whom he associated with the Oireachtas Golf Society event appeared to him to be in the same room with him. He could not hear any noise coming from any adjoining room. Nor was he conscious of any adjoining room. He was sitting facing the front of the room where the top table was and from where the speeches were made.

Elsewhere:

“The engineer was instructed that the dinner was followed by speeches and a prize giving; that a mobile audio speaker system had been installed in the Kylemore Suite for guests to hear the speeches, and to facilitate the adjustment of volume of the speaker a section of the retractable wall was opened at the time of the speeches and prize giving, which resulted in a narrow opening in the wall between the suites at that stage.”

Elsewhere:

At the end of the dinner there were speeches and a prize giving. During the prize giving at least one person, who was called on to receive a prize, approached the front of the room in the Omey Suite from Mr Justice Woulfe’s left.

Mr Justice Woulfe [who was in the Omey Suite] stated that this did not give him any cause for concern. After the event, and during the process of this review, Mr Justice Woulfe acknowledged that this person may have been dining in a second room, behind the retractable partition wall. It appears that late in the evening a gap was opened by the hotel staff in the retractable wall behind Mr. Justice Woulfe, slightly behind his left shoulder – see Image 30 in the Book of Images.

Mr Justice Woulfe stated that he did not know a gap had been opened, at the end of the dinner for the speeches and prize giving. He did notice Gerry Brady going up for a prize, from his left. But he indicated to the Reviewer [Ms Justice Denham] that he never noticed the open section in the partition wall.

Elsewhere:

Mr Justice Woulfe stated that after his appointment as a judge of the Supreme Court he was not familiar with internal judicial protocols. He had received briefing materials from the Courts Service, but these concerned logistical issues, such as car parking and office space.

Mr Justice Woulfe, after discussing the matter with his wife, decided that, the safest thing to do was to raise the issue of the Oireachtas Golf Society event with the Chief Justice.

On Wednesday 29th July, 2020 Mr Justice Woulfe was crossing the yard at the Four Courts and met the Chief Justice. Mr Justice Woulfe called out to the Chief Justice, saying that because he was new he just wanted to check something with him. He said that he had been invited to the Oireachtas Golf Society outing.

Mr Justice Woulfe emphasised that it was a non-political event. Mr Justice Woulfe recollects the Chief Justice said something like “I don’t see any problem with that”. Mr Justice Woulfe pointed out to the Reviewer [Ms Justice Denham], in fairness to the Chief Justice, that he did not raise the issue as to whether there would be a dinner or not.

At no time did Mr Justice Woulfe receive a formal written invitation to the Oireachtas Golf Society outing, which he understands may have had a reference to a dinner. He never had sight of such an invitation. He was not aware whether there would be a formal group dinner, or whether participants would dine separately in the clubhouse with their playing partners directly after their round of golf. So he could not have raised the issue of the dinner with the Chief Justice at that time because he, Mr Justice Woulfe, did not know of the arrangements.

He had one or two conversations with Paul Coghlan, and got the exact dates for the event. He stated that nobody mentioned the dinner one way or another in any of the conversations.

Elsewhere:

On arrival at the clubhouse in Ballyconneely he went upstairs to the bar, where he expected to register. At the registration desk he met Donie Cassidy and Deputy Noel Grealish. Paul Coghlan was also in the vicinity of the registration desk. Mr Justice Woulfe was asked for and paid a fee for the outing, and he was told that the fee included dinner.

He was given a docket or voucher for dinner and was told that the dinner would be in the Station House Hotel, Clifden at 9.00pm. This was when Mr. Justice Woulfe first became aware of the proposed dinner.

Mr Justice Woulfe did not consider phoning the Chief Justice, or any other member of the Court, to seek guidance in relation to the dinner. Mr Justice Woulfe conveyed that his assumption was that the Chief Justice would have known that there was some kind of social element to the golf. He considered that there was no need to go checking the details
with him. He believed that there was nothing inherently dangerous about the fact that there was going to be a dinner. He stated that gatherings of 50 people were allowed under the regulations. These were the regulations in which he had been involved in the Attorney General’s office.

Elsewhere:

At the meeting on the 8th September, 2020, having heard from Mr. Justice Woulfe that he first learnt of the dinner when he registered at the Ballyconneely Clubhouse, the Reviewer asked him;

Mrs Justice Denham: “Did you consider phoning the Chief, or any other member of the Court to seek guidance in relation to the dinner?”

Mr Justice Woulfe: “Ah, no. I think that would have been ridiculous, with respect, Judge, I really do. You know, I don’t think an adult person on holidays in that kind of sense would go bothering the Chief Justice at that stage. Particularly there was nothing to spark off bother in my mind that there was any question going back to him.”

Having, inter alia, pointed to the reassurances he, Mr Justice Woulfe, had received from experienced people in the hotel trade, and the Government policy and the economic imperative of hotels getting business, the Reviewer asked Mr Justice Woulfe what the position was for a judge.

Mrs Justice Denham: “And what about as a judge?

Mr Justice Woulfe: “Same as a judge. In this sense you’re an ordinary citizen going to a social and recreational event”

Mrs Justice Denham: “Well are you an ordinary citizen? … ”

Mr Justice Woulfe: “Because of the nature of the event I think you are.”

Later the Reviewer asked Mr Justice Woulfe;

Mrs Justice Denham: “Do you accept that your presence at the dinner may have created a public controversy which could have adversely affected the Supreme Court?”

Mr Justice Woulfe: “Ok that’s a difficult question. In one sense I suppose that is so, that for the media to also have the chance to bring down a judge as an extra fuel to the fire and it did add to the controversy that I was there. …”

Mrs Justice Denham: “I think so, do you accept the context and the context is the pandemic, where we have six months of not going to christenings, not holding weddings, not being able to go to your family’s funerals”.

Mr Justice Woulfe: “Of course.”

Mrs Justice Denham: “And pent up tension in the country?”

Mr Justice Woulfe: “Of course. This was a very unfortunate set of circumstances and unfortunate timing. And for those people to be presented by the media with what appeared to be a flagrant breach of the Regulations and the Guidelines was like letting off a bomb.”

In all the circumstances the Reviewer is of the opinion that there was cogent evidence that, apart from considering whether the dinner was in compliance with the covide-19 [sic] Regulations and Guidelines and the separation of powers issue, Mr Justice Woulfe did not seek advice on or consider whether it was appropriate for a member of the Supreme Court to attend the dinner.

Elsewhere

Mr Justice Woulfe stated that on Thursday morning, 20th August, 2020, he was absolutely dumbfounded to hear that Minister Calleary had resigned on account of attending the dinner.

Mr Justice Woulfe stated that he had not been aware of any breaches of the Regulations or Guidelines at that stage. He stated that he had racked his brain to see if there was something he had missed and stated that it had seemed to him that the media were pressing that there was a new Government rule on the 19th August and that the number had gone from 50 to 6 persons (at a gathering).

He stated that he was astonished, amazed, but he stated that if he had had time to think clearly he would have known that that could not have happened so swiftly. He stated that his understanding now (8th September, 2020) was that there had been wholesale confusion in the public’s understanding of the Regulations which applied on the 19th August, 2020.

The report can be read in full here

Earlier:

Retired Chief Justice Susan Denham has cleared Supreme Court Justice Seamus Woulfe for attending the event at the centre of Golfgate. As Attorney General, Justice Woulfe had signed off the restrictions he would later breach

This afternoon.

Via Orla O’Donnell at RTÉ:

It’s understood the report by Ms Justice Susan Denham found there were not sufficient grounds to warrant the resignation of Mr Justice Woulfe.

She also concluded that while he erred in deciding to attend the dinner, mitigating factors needed to be taken into account.

Ms Justice Denham found it was reasonable for the judge to rely on the assurances of the organisers and his own observations in relation to the compliance with Covid-19 regulations.

Good times.

Resignation of Woulfe over golf dinner would be ‘disproportionate’ (RTÉ)

Previously: Seamus Woulfe on Broadsheet

Meanwhile…

Retired Chief Justice Susan Denham (left) and Séamus Woulfe, who, as Attorney General, signed off on regulations that prohibited gatherings like the golf outing he would attend a few weeks later as a Supreme Court judge

This afternoon.

Further to Golfgate….

Via The Irish Times:

Retired chief justice Susan Denham has met Supreme Court judge Séamus Woulfe concerning his attendance at the Oireachtas golf dinner, The Irish Times has learned.

Mr Justice Woulfe, a former Attorney General, was accompanied by Michael Collins SC when he met with Ms Denham in a boardroom on Tuesday at the Courts Service Green Street building.

…Senior Counsel Shane Murphy was also in attendance at Wednesday’s meeting which is understood to have lasted a number of hours

Séamus Woulfe meets former chief justice over Oireachtas dinner controversy (Irish Times)

Meeting reconstruction:

Denham: “What were you thinking?”

Woulfe: “Eh…”

[Four hours later]

Denham: “Lunch?”

[all present rush for door]

Meanwhile…

This morning.

Speaking on this morning’s Joe Finnegan show, in a wide ranging interview, Retired Judge [former Fianna Fáil member now with Sinn Féin] Sean MacBride says he would have said no if invited himself.

‘”I would have sent them a text saying no thanks, I am a permanent member of the third arm of government and I cannot be playing golf in an Oireachtas golf competition as you can appreciate, good luck and bye bye” and that’s simply how it would have been dealt with.’

“Seamus Woulfe is a very fine person and I have total respect and esteem for him” but he says he made a “tragic error of judgement” in attending the event in Clifden.

“I still don’t understand as to why he went there” and that he couldn’t see that people would think here was “a clear breach of the separation of powers”.

Listen here

Retired Chief Justice Susan Denham: Supreme Court Justice Séamus Woulfe

This morning.

Further to Golfgate.

Via historian Diarmuid Ferriter:

That a former Supreme Court judge, Susan Denham, is inquiring into a serving Supreme Court judge, Séamus Woulfe, in relation to his attendance at the Clifden event seems bizarre.

It is perhaps both an attempt to dilute politicisation of his grossly misjudged actions by preserving the independence of the court, and a substitute for the still-awaited judicial conduct committee…

…Ironically, as chief justice, Susan Denham made what was regarded as a pointed intervention in 2017 dwelling on the imperativeness of the separation of powers when welcoming the appointment of Woulfe as attorney general, maintaining he would be an important and impartial bridge between the judiciary and the legislature….

Diarmaid Ferriter: A former judge inquiring into a serving judge over Clifden event seems bizarre (Irish Times)

In 2017…

In her address welcoming Mr Woulfe, the Chief Justice said the separation of powers in the State meant each great organ of State had its own specific powers.

“It is a system of checks and balances, and inevitably the courts make decisions on the actions of other branches of government,” she said.

“Consequently, it is necessary that there be some distance between the branches.”

She said that, by nature of their position and function, “judges are not expected to engage in public controversy, as other groups may who freely express their views to members of the legislature and executive.”

Chief Justice highlights independence of Attorney General (Irish Times, June 21, 2017)

Previously: Woulfe Trapped

Rollingnews

Chief Justice Frank Clarke (left) and Supreme Court Justice Séamus Woulfe

This evening.

The Supreme Court has released a statement concerning court member Justice Séamus Woulfe and his attendance at the Oireachtas Golf Society dinner last week.

Justice Woulfe signed off on the Covid regulations as Attorney General prior to joining the Supreme Court in July.

The statement read:

“The Supreme Court has requested former Chief Justice, Ms Justice Susan Denham, to consider certain questions arising out of the attendance of Mr Justice Seamus Woulfe at an event in the west of Ireland last week and to report her conclusions and recommendations to the Chief Justice.

“Ms Justice Denham has agreed to that request and will commence her work immediately.

“Ms Justice Denham has been asked to consider whether Mr Justice Woulfe should have accepted the invitation to dinner. In addition, whether he should, in all the circumstances, have left the hotel in the light of the situation prevailing.

“Furthermore, whether he should have attended the golf event without attending the dinner. In the context of those questions Ms Justice Denham has also been asked to consider whether there are any relevant codes of practice or guidelines and to make any recommendations in that regard which she considers appropriate.

“This non-statutory approach has been necessitated because of the fact that relevant sections of the Judicial Council Act 2019 have not yet been commenced.”

Via Orla O’Donnell

Denham, eh?

Previously: Woulfe Trapped

Rollingnews

denhamgageby

Chief Justice Susan Denham (left) and Patrick Gageby SC

Earlier this year we highlighted the unusual circumstances surrounding the Supreme Court decision that allowed suspected paedophile swimming coach Geoge Gibney to escape justice.

The decision in November 1994 granted Mr Gibney leave to apply for judicial review on the basis that his right to a fair trial was infringed because of a delay in reporting the alleged offences.

This was the first case in Ireland to recognise that a delay in making a complaint of sexual abuse could preclude a subsequent prosecution.

What also marked out this case was that Patrick Gageby, one of Mr Gibney’s barristers, appeared before his own sister, Susan Denham, who was on the Supreme Court that day.

And court records show this hearing was not the only case in which Mr Gageby has appeared before his sister.

It was one of many.

In 1991 Susan Denham was appointed a High Court judge and a year later was appointed to the Supreme Court. Thomas Finlay was Chief Justice at the time and had responsibility  for assigning judges to cases.

Ms Denham subsequently sat as a judge on at least two cases in which Patrick  Gageby appeared as a Junior Counsel.

G v DPP [1994] 1 IR 374
People v Rock [1994] 1 ILRM 66

Mr Gageby became a senior counsel in 1995 and the practice continued under successive Chief Justices.

1994:  Liam Hamilton appointed Chief Justice.

Larkin v O’Dea [1995] 2 IR 485
Incorporated Law Society of Ireland v Carroll [1995] 3 IR 145
O’Leary v A-G [1995] 1 IR 254
DPP v PG [1996] 1 IR 281
DPP v McDonagh [1996] 1 IR 565
DPP v McGinley 1998 WJSC 5791
POC v DPP [2000] 3 IR 87

2000:  Ronan Keane appointed Chief Justice.

DPP v Edgeworth [2001] 2 IR
FMcK v AF [2002] 2 ILRM 203

2004:  John Murray appointed Chief Justice.

O’Brien v DPP [2005] 2 ILRM 444
Gilligan v DPP [2006] 2 IR 389
Carmody v Minister for Justice [2010] 1 IR 635

These cases represent a relatively small fraction of Mr Gageby’s busy criminal practice during this period. However they involved key issues of constitutional and criminal law.

The number of judges on the Supreme Court has increased over the last few years, but there would always have been enough judges to avoid Ms Denham having to deal with cases involving her brother.

In July 2011 Susan Denham was appointed Chief Justice and the practice appears to have ceased.

Irish law is subject to general rules of fair procedure, including the principle ‘nemo iudex in causa sua‘ (no man shall be a judge in his own cause), which provides for the quashing of judicial decisions made in ‘circumstances which would lead a fair-minded and informed observer to conclude that there was a real possibility … that the tribunal was biased’.

Last year, the Supreme Court quashed a decision of a High Court judge who had held shares in one of the companies party to the litigation in circumstances where he had mistakenly failed to disclose the full extent of that shareholding.

In this instance Susan Denham, now Chief Justice, gave the majority verdict.

Ms Denham said objective bias was a matter not just for the parties, or the trial judge, but brought in issues regarding:

“…the fundamental concern for the manifest impartial administration of justice and the confidence which the people rest in the judiciary.”

Previously: The Chief Justice, Her Brother And How George Gibney Got Away

90337650

Patrick Gageby SC

A former solicitor who was due to be sentenced today for stealing €260,000 from client accounts has had her case adjourned after a Dublin Circuit Court judge said she could not pass sentence due to family connections.

A previous court hearing was told that 47-year-old Jacqueline Durcan from Co Mayo and now living in Brussels, was in debt for €6.5 million after a series of failed investments when the offence occurred between 2008 and 2011.

She had pleaded guilty and was due to be sentenced today.

However, Judge Melanie Greally said a “set of circumstances had arisen” and it appeared there were connections between her wider family and Durcan’s wider family and it would not be appropriate for her to deal with the case.

Judge Greally said the case would now have to be dealt with by another judge…

Defence barrister, Patrick Gageby SC, said his client and her husband were in the difficult position of owing €6.5 million to the banks at the time of the offence.

“This young couple over-reached themselves during the property bubble,” he said. “They made a series of ventures which brought catastrophic circumstances on themselves and their family.”

Judge stands aside from solicitor sentencing (RTÉ)

Justice Declan Costello conducted the judicial review and held that Mr (George) Gibney’s right to a fair trial would be infringed if the prosecution were to be proceeded with.

He granted an order precluding the DPP from proceeding with the charges.

An opportunity to appeal the decision was declined by Eamonn Barnes, then Director of Public Prosecutions.

George Gibney left Ireland – travelling first to Scotland, where he coached young swimmers, and then to America.

What went unreported at the time of the Supreme Court decision and what few outside the legal fraternity knew, least of all Mr Gibney’s alleged victims, was that Susan Denham, sister of Patrick Gageby, was on the bench that day.

Ms Denham was in ‘complete agreement’ with the majority judgement…

The Chief Justice, Her Brother And How George Gibney Got Away (Broadsheet, April 29, 2016)

Good times.

Meanwhile: Chief justice rejects criticism on judicial reform (RTÉ)

Rollingnews

9041156290337650gibneylawreport

From top: Susan Denham, Patrick Gageby and George Gibney; Law report on the Supreme Court hearing

The High Court judicial review in 1994 that quashed all sex abuse charges against swim coach George Gibney did not just set free a suspected paedophile.

It was a landmark decision which paved the way for similar successful actions over the next 20 years.

But it was only made possible by a judgment reached in the Supreme Court just before Christmas, 1993.

Six months earlier, Mr Gibney had been charged with 27 counts of indecency against young swimmers and of carnal knowledge of girls under the age of 15.

Seven swimmers had come forward and sworn statements to the Gardaí that Mr Gibney had assaulted them at various times between 1967 and 1981.

On July 12, 1993 Mr Gibney’s legal team, including barrister Patrick Gageby, applied in the High Court for a judicial review restraining the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) from proceeding with the prosecution.

A judicial review allows orders to be made against State decision-makers (including the DPP) if there is a a breach of fair procedures in the decision making process.

Mr Gibney’s legal team argued that the delay in initiating the prosecution infringed their client’s right to a fair trial.

On July 19, Justice Vivian Lavan in the High Court refused to stop the DPP from proceeding with the charges. He said that the delay did not infringe Mr Gibney’s right to a fair trial.

Mr Gibney appealed this decision to the Supreme Court.

On December 14, 1993, the Supreme Court granted Mr Gibney leave to apply for judicial review on the basis that his right to a fair trial might possibly have been infringed.

This was the first case in Ireland to recognise that delay in making a complaint of sexual abuse could preclude a subsequent prosecution.

Justice Declan Costello conducted the judicial review and held that Mr Gibney’s right to a fair trial would be infringed if the prosecution were to be proceeded with.

He granted an order precluding the DPP from proceeding with the charges.

An opportunity to appeal the decision was declined by Eamonn Barnes, then Director of Public Prosecutions.

George Gibney left Ireland – travelling first to Scotland, where he coached young swimmers, and then to America.

What went unreported at the time of the Supreme Court decision and what few outside the legal fraternity knew, least of all Mr Gibney’s alleged victims, was that Susan Denham, sister of Patrick Gageby, was on the bench that day.

Ms Denham was in ‘complete agreement’ with the majority judgement and placed her feelings on the record.

She said,

‘all persons charged or convicted of an offence are entitled to the rule of law and have constitutional rights. Such persons are also entitled to due process of law. A trial, in a court of law is not an exercise in vengeance but is a trial in due course of law in the pursuit of justice on behalf of the community.

The rule of law was the essence of a civilised society. In so far as there were, developments and knowledge in society a about issues relating to this case, these must be dealt with in a fair and just way by the courts.’

Ms Denham added that on ‘the affidavit and statement filed [in this case] it was clear that such a case had been established to meet this initial burden of proof.’

There was no objection to Ms Denham hearing her brother’s case from the Director of Public Prosecutions, represented in court by the late Eamon Leahy.

The Code of Conduct of the Irish Bar provides that:

“Barristers shall not habitually practice in a court in which their parent, spouse or near blood relative is a presiding judge.”

In O’Reilly v Cassidy, a decision of a Circuit Court judge in favour of a client represented by his daughter was set aside by a superior court.

In the United States, Australia and the United Kingdom, rules specifically provide that a judge shall not hear a case in which a family member appears for a party – a principle which is also contained in the Code of Judicial Conduct laid down by the United Nations.

Irish law is also subject to general rules of fair procedure, including the principle ‘nemo iudex in causa sua‘ (no man shall be a judge in his own cause), which provides for the quashing of judicial decisions made in ‘circumstances which would lead a fair-minded and informed observer to conclude that there was a real possibility … that the tribunal was biased’.

Last year, the Supreme Court quashed a decision of a High Court judge who had held shares in one of the companies party to the litigation in circumstances where he had mistakenly failed to disclose the full extent of that shareholding.

In this instance Susan Denham, now Chief Justice, gave the majority verdict.

She said objective bias was a matter not just for the parties, or the trial judge, but brought in issues regarding

“the fundamental concern for the manifest impartial administration of justice and the confidence which the people rest in the judiciary.”

Following the Gibney judgment, a significant number of applications to stop prosecutions for sexual offences on the basis of delayed complaint were made through the courts.

Patrick Gageby made 16 of these applications, most of which were heard in the period 2004-2007.

Seven of his applicants were successful including a psychiatric nurse facing 32 counts of indecent assault against a patient between 1975 and 1979, a man charged with 63 sexual offences against his sister from the 1960s and 1970s, and two priests accused of sexual offences in the late 1980s.

One unsuccessful applicant was Dublin swimming coach Derry O’Rourke who was convicted in 1998 for 12 years on 59 sample charges of assaulting and raping 12 girls. In 2001, he was convicted of child rape and sentenced to seven years and, in 2005, he received another 10 years for a third set of convictions.

In 2003, the Irish Times reported Mr Gageby telling a conference that there was a ‘subversion of the presumption of innocence’ with historic sexual abuse cases.

“People asked why a person would “say such a thing” if the offence had not happened,” he is reported as saying.

The paper reported:

‘[Mr Gageby] warned that cases up to 40 or 50 years old might be given a credence they did not deserve. Judges should give carefully worded warnings to juries when they were summing up old cases. Proper and full disclosure was vital, he said. The gardai were not there primarily to help the victim, but to assist in the administration of justice.’

In 2005, Mr Gageby told a prosecutors’ conference that there should be a limit on the time allowed to elapse between an alleged sex crime and the prosecution of a suspect.

in 2007, Mr Gageby was appointed by the then Justice Minister Michael McDowell to review the Garda investigation of the 1973 death of then 11-year-old abuse victim Cynthia Owen‘s daughter Noleen Murphy and concluded no public inquiry should be carried out into the death.

A year after the sex abuse charges against George Gibney were dropped, police in Colorado investigated a complaint of sexual assault made by a young swimmer against Mr Gibney, who had been working as a coach in the North Jeffco Parks and Recreation District.

Pics: Rollingnews

Earlier: Unreasonable Delay