Contempt of Court? By whom?

Indo404 · 28-10-2012 1:50pm #1

TAOISEACH Enda Kenny asked Justice Minister Alan Shatter to "intervene" in a court case related to the marriage breakdown of one of his constituents, the Sunday Independent can reveal.
Mr Kenny made the extraordinary request of the Justice Minister twice in the past year despite the stringent in-camera rule that protects the privacy of individuals involved in family law proceedings.

Breaching the in-camera rule is considered a contempt of court and can result in a jail sentence and/or a significant fine.

Letters obtained by the Sunday Independent show Mr Kenny's constituent alleging that documents in the proceedings had been "forged or otherwise invalid".

The woman contacted the Taoiseach, who in turn wrote to Mr Shatter asking to "know the present position" in the family law case.

Mr Shatter, who is a family law solicitor, eventually told the Taoiseach that it was "entirely improper for a member of government to intervene in any way with Court Registry records".

Last night, Fianna Fail's justice spokesman Niall Collins said the Taoiseach's letters were "an outrageous failure of judgement" and called on Mr Kenny to explain why he seemed to be weighing in on one side of a family law dispute.

On October 20 last year, Mr Shatter wrote to the Taoiseach acknowledging that he received Mr Kenny's letter the previous day, saying "the matter has been brought to the attention of the appropriate officials in my department".

Four months later, on February 16, Mr Kenny followed up his initial correspondence "regarding an issue on family law" asking to know the "present position in the case".

The following day, Mr Shatter responded again, saying the matter had been forwarded to "the appropriate officials in my department".

In May, having considered the matter for seven months, Mr Shatter wrote to the Taoiseach telling him it would "inappropriate" and "entirely improper" for him to comment on the case.

Mr Shatter said: "I note there is a very substantial dispute resulting from a marriage unfortunately breaking down.

"I am sure your constituent will understand that it would be inappropriate for me to comment on the family dispute that had arisen.

"I note she has instructed a solicitor who should be able to give comprehensive advice to her on the issues.

He added: "The totality of the background circumstances will be relevant to the determination of the claim. . . and I hope she understands it would be entirely improper for a member of government to intervene in any way with Court Registry records.

Despite saying that it was not appropriate to comment on the case, he closed his correspondence with advice for Mr Kenny's constituent.

"If she considers that any document is forged or otherwise invalid [she should] consult her solicitor in the matter and consider reporting it to An Garda Siochana," he said.

Last night Mr Collins said: "The news that the Taoiseach of our country is involving himself and his office in an individual case will make a lot of people very uncomfortable."

Family law expert and director of Family, Fathers and Friends Sam Butt believes the Taoiseach had "crossed a lot boundaries" due to the private nature of family law cases.

He said: "As a public servant, he can't be seen to be taking the side of one or other of the parties because it can be taken as he is interfering with the judicial process.

"If you or I were to have done it we would be found in breach of the in-camera rule and be facing the consequences.

"Whatever transpires between the two parties involved in the case cannot be disclosed outside the four walls of the court."

Mr Butt added: "In fact, the woman has broken it first by disclosing the information to the Taoiseach, who is a third party."

Labour senator and former barrister Ivana Bacik said it was not appropriate for the Taoiseach to make the representations and said interfering with family law proceedings was a contempt of court.

"It seems to me that anyone would know that it's not appropriate to be writing these letters," she said.

"There is no role for any legislator or executive members in a family law case. There is no reason to intervene because you simply can't. It's a contempt of court."

A Justice Department spokesman said Mr Shatter would not be commenting on Mr Kenny's representation.

A spokesman for Mr Kenny said: "The Taoiseach receives an extremely high volume of correspondence on all subjects from all parts of the country and his office forwards queries for the attention of the department responsible."

MagicSean · 28-10-2012 2:11pm

Great copy and paste job there op.

Julius Seizure · 28-10-2012 2:13pm

Interesting.

But why is there a new line

At the end of every

phrase?

Indo404 · 28-10-2012 2:23pm

MagicSean wrote: »

Great copy and paste job there op.

Yep from: http://www.independent.ie/national-news/kenny-asks-shatter-to-meddle-in-family-case-3276736.html

tayto lover · 28-10-2012 2:34pm

Kenny should resign after attempting to interfere with the course of justice.
I wonder will this appear in TIME magazine.

NoQuarter · 28-10-2012 3:29pm

OP, we can read the news ourselves thanks. Have you any opinion on it that you would like to discuss? I really dont think we need you to keep pasting in news articles all the time.

MagicSean · 28-10-2012 3:32pm

tayto lover wrote: »

Kenny should resign after attempting to interfere with the course of justice.
I wonder will this appear in TIME magazine.

I disagree. If he was provided with information to suggest a person was using false documentation in a court he was correct to pass it on to the minister for justice who in turn could notify the judge in question.

But in all honesty I think I would need to see his letter instead of just be provided with a one word quote followed by a four word quote from it.

Tom Young · 28-10-2012 3:41pm

What? ... Interfere in the judicial process when not before a court?

Sorry but I completely disagree. You may have come across the Sheedy affair, etc.

Politicians, including the Minister for Justice need to stay well away from interfering with the judiciary. Simple as that.

Family law, is notoriously contentious. This story is one of potential interference with a pillar of the State that shouldn't be touched at any time. Taoiseach or not.

Peregrinus · 28-10-2012 3:47pm

MagicSean wrote: »

I disagree. If he was provided with information to suggest a person was using false documentation in a court he was correct to pass it on to the minister for justice who in turn could notify the judge in question.

Absolutely not. The parties to the litigation should put the matter in evidence, and when one of the parties made representations to him about this matter Kenny should have told them so. He should never have written to Shatter about it. Shatter, fortunately, is more clued in (or his staff are).

Ken. · 28-10-2012 3:51pm

http://www.rte.ie/news/2012/1028/alan-shatter-sunday-independent.html
The minister stated he did not tell the Taoiseach that it was entirely improper for a member of the Government to intervene.
What he did state was that he hoped the constituent would understand it was entirely improper for a minister to intervene.

Mr Shatter said the newspaper had obtained the records under the Freedom of Information Act and then "corrupted the content" to create a sensational story for the paper's commercial benefit.
"This was deliberately done to damage the Taoiseach's reputation, to represent me as having admonished the Taoiseach and to attract critical comment from Oireachtas members who had not read the correspondence concerned," he stated.
The minister said he expected Independent Newspapers would be taking steps to address the issues raised in the story and publish an appropriate apology.

No contempt of court.

MagicSean · 28-10-2012 3:53pm

Peregrinus wrote: »

Absolutely not. The parties to the litigation should put the matter in evidence, and when one of the parties made representations to him about this matter Kenny should have told them so. He should never have written to Shatter about it. Shatter, fortunately, is more clued in (or his staff are).

The constituent wasn't a party to the case though.

aloyisious · 28-10-2012 3:53pm

Memo to Enda: advise the constituent to inform her solicitor (and Gardai) of her suspicions re forgery or invalidity of legal papers, even if it's likely that the solicitor is aware of the constituents "suspicions". Make note in official Taoiseach's Dept Diary of full action taken to avoid any allegations of inpropriety.

ResearchWill · 28-10-2012 4:03pm

MagicSean wrote: »

I disagree. If he was provided with information to suggest a person was using false documentation in a court he was correct to pass it on to the minister for justice who in turn could notify the judge in question.

But in all honesty I think I would need to see his letter instead of just be provided with a one word quote followed by a four word quote from it.

He was provided with information of a case that was in-camera, no one outside of that case should have any information about the case. The forgery of any document is for the trial judge or appeal judge to decide upon.

What in gods name is the leader of the country spending any time on a family law issue it's a perfect example of what is wrong with politics in this country.

ResearchWill · 28-10-2012 4:07pm

MagicSean wrote: »

The constituent wasn't a party to the case though.

My reading of the article the person was a party. It would be even worse if the person who contacted Mr. Kenny was not a party to proceedings.

Indo404 · 28-10-2012 4:12pm

NoQuarter wrote: »

OP, we can read the news ourselves thanks. Have you any opinion on it that you would like to discuss? I really dont think we need you to keep pasting in news articles all the time.

Read the title.
Contempt by whom? The woman who ask Kenny or contempt by Kenny who asked Shatter?

tayto lover · 28-10-2012 4:24pm

Indo404 wrote: »

Read the title.
Contempt by whom? The woman who ask Kenny or contempt by Kenny who asked Shatter?

The woman was in contempt first by disclosing her suspicions to Kenny. She is not allowed to speak to anyone outside of the court except her solicitor as far as I am aware.
Kenny also wrong by interfering in something he should have known was none of his business and which he should not have been told. He should have had the wit to inform her of that too.
Was the solicitor not good enough for her that she had to try and use political influence and by going to the top man.

MagicSean · 28-10-2012 6:21pm

ResearchWill wrote: »

He was provided with information of a case that was in-camera, no one outside of that case should have any information about the case. The forgery of any document is for the trial judge or appeal judge to decide upon.

What in gods name is the leader of the country spending any time on a family law issue it's a perfect example of what is wrong with politics in this country.

You are basing your opinion on the Sindo report. I'm basing mine on Shatters statement as well. I presume the truth is somewhere in the middle.

And forgery is a matter for the gardai to investigate and the dpp to prosecute. While the trial judge can decide on its admissibility there would still need to be a criminal investigation.

tayto lover · 28-10-2012 6:44pm

MagicSean wrote: »

You are basing your opinion on the Sindo report. I'm basing mine on Shatters statement as well. I presume the truth is somewhere in the middle.

And forgery is a matter for the gardai to investigate and the dpp to prosecute. While the trial judge can decide on its admissibility there would still need to be a criminal investigation.

When did it become the business of the Taoiseach to point out the alleged forgery?
Could her solicitor not do that?
Can I contact him to act on my behalf if I need to?
Do you think he would be available for all of us?

MagicSean · 28-10-2012 6:53pm

tayto lover wrote: »

When did it become the business of the Taoiseach to point out the alleged forgery?
Could her solicitor not do that?
Can I contact him to act on my behalf if I need to?
Do you think he would be available for all of us?

You think he should have ignored it? According to shatter, Kenny forwarded the woman's correspondence to him and asked him for advice on how to proceed. There's been no suggestion he knew the woman before hand or that he wanted any particular action taken.

Have you ever actually asked a TD for help with something? Many of them have local clinics were they meet with people who have issues. I'm sure if you met with your local TD about a problem they would look into it for you.

tayto lover · 28-10-2012 6:58pm

MagicSean wrote: »

You think he should have ignored it? According to shatter, Kenny forwarded the woman's correspondence to him and asked him for advice on how to proceed. There's been no suggestion he knew the woman before hand or that he wanted any particular action taken.

Have you ever actually asked a TD for help with something? Many of them have local clinics were they meet with people who have issues. I'm sure if you met with your local TD about a problem they would look into it for you.

Would referring her to her solicitor or the Gardai not have the appropriate action?
Contacting the Minister for Justice about a constituents allegation smacks of "something fishy".

MagicSean · 28-10-2012 7:04pm

tayto lover wrote: »

Would referring her to her solicitor or the Gardai not have the appropriate action?
Contacting the Minister for Justice about a constituents allegation smacks of "something fishy".

Enda Kenny is a teacher. Shatter is a lawyer. Sure it would have been easy to just fob her off but where's the harm in making sure of things first?

ResearchWill · 28-10-2012 7:08pm

MagicSean wrote: »

You are basing your opinion on the Sindo report. I'm basing mine on Shatters statement as well. I presume the truth is somewhere in the middle.

And forgery is a matter for the gardai to investigate and the dpp to prosecute. While the trial judge can decide on its admissibility there would still need to be a criminal investigation.

A judge has the power to send information to DPP in relation to criminal law breaches including family law.

jimmycrackcorm · 28-10-2012 7:11pm

tayto lover wrote: »

When did it become the business of the Taoiseach to point out the alleged forgery?
Could her solicitor not do that?
Can I contact him to act on my behalf if I need to?
Do you think he would be available for all of us?

Your own td is available to you to contact on your behalf. Even the taoiseach is still a td.

All he did was pass along a constituents letter to get a response. Happens every day to every td. I don't know veg at the fuss is.

ResearchWill · 28-10-2012 7:14pm

MagicSean wrote: »

You think he should have ignored it? According to shatter, Kenny forwarded the woman's correspondence to him and asked him for advice on how to proceed. There's been no suggestion he knew the woman before hand or that he wanted any particular action taken.

Have you ever actually asked a TD for help with something? Many of them have local clinics were they meet with people who have issues. I'm sure if you met with your local TD about a problem they would look into it for you.

And that as I said is exactly wrong with our political system. There is separation of powers for a reason. The leader of the country should have told the women if she was not happy appeal, if her solicitor was not saying what she wanted she should fire him. Other than that unless she can point at a systematic failure in the administration of justice she should keep her family law legal matters private or else advocate getting rid of the automatic incamera rule.

ResearchWill · 28-10-2012 7:17pm

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

Your own td is available to you to contact on your behalf. Even the taoiseach is still a td.

All he did was pass along a constituents letter to get a response. Happens every day to every td. I don't know veg at the fuss is.

Because the women breached the incamera rule, which is there because TD's voted it should be there. If people not happy with the advocate removing it but don't breach it. I have see. TD's of all parties getting involved with letter writing which in a large number of cases buggers things up.

Contempt of Court? By whom?

Comments