There is a thoroughly dishonest and inaccurate report on the front page of
today’s Sunday Independent. The Taoiseach is wrongly accused of having
asked that I, as Minister for Justice, “meddle” or “intervene” in a family
law court case in what is described in the paper as “an extraordinary
request” made to me which would breach the “in camera rule” which would be
“considered a contempt of court”. It is also represented that I admonished
the Taoiseach by “eventually” telling him that it was “entirely improper
for a Member of Government to intervene in any way with Court Registry
Records” and that I wrote “to the Taoiseach telling him it would be
‘inappropriate’ and ‘entirely improper’ for me to comment on the case”.
This is a gross misrepresentation of the correspondence that took place
The facts are as follows – Having received a letter from a constituent, the
Taoiseach forwarded it to me. His correspondence stated “I enclose a copy
of a letter I have received from” a named constituent “with an issue on
family law”. His letter continued “I would be grateful if you could
examine the points raised in (his/her*) letter and if you could advise me
in due course.”
Ultimately, I replied to the Taoiseach stating “I refer to your
correspondence”, referenced the correspondence dates and the constituent’s
name and continued “regarding a family law matter. 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 has arisen. I note (he/she*)
has instructed a solicitor who should be able to give comprehensive advice
to (him/her*) on the issues that have arisen.
The totality of the background circumstances will be relevant to the claim
(the constituent) refers to and I hope (he/she*) understands it would be
entirely improper for a Member of Government to intervene in any way with
Land Registry Records. (The constituent) should, if (he/she*) considers
that any document is forged or otherwise invalid consult (his/her*)
solicitor on the matter and consider reporting it to An Garda Síochána.
Yours sincerely”
*to preserve the anonymity to which the constituent is entitled the extract
from the letter has been amended so as to either refer to “a constituent”
or “he/she” or him/her” or “his/her”.
The following should be noted from the correspondence:
1. At no stage did the Taoiseach ask me “to meddle in family case” as is
stated in the Sunday Independent’s main front page headline.
2. There was no request of any nature by the Taoiseach to me to “intervene”
“in a court case related to the marriage breakdown of one of his
constituents” as is alleged in the first paragraph of the Sunday
Independent’s front page report. He merely requested “that I “examine the
points raised” in the constituents letter and “advise” him in due course as
to the appropriate reply.
3. I did not “tell the Taoiseach”, as is falsely alleged, that it was
“entirely improper for a Member of Government to intervene with Court
Registry Records”. I stated in my response to the Taoiseach that “I hope”
that his constituent “understands it would be entirely improper for a
Member of Government to intervene in any way with Land Registry Records”.
4. There is no mention in my correspondence to the Taoiseach to what are
described in the Sunday Independent’s article as “Court Registry Records”.
There is a reference to “Land Registry Records” which are entirely
different to Court Records. This is because the constituent's letter raised
an issue about the Land Registry.
5. As is also clear from the correspondence, the correspondence related to
what the Taoiseach referred to as “an issue on family law” and to what I
refer to as a “family law matter” and also as to a “family dispute” but
there is no reference of any nature in the Taoiseachs correspondence to me
or in my correspondence to him of a “court case related to the marriage
breakdown” of one of his constituents. In a reminder letter to me in
which the Taoiseach again references the correspondence “regarding an issue
on family law” in seeking a substantive response he noted receiving an
earlier “acknowledgement” from me and stated he would be grateful if I
could let him “know the present position in this case” being the issue of
his asking that I “examine the points raised” in his constituent’s letter
and that I “advise him” in “due course” on the constituents letter. This
reference to the word “case” has been deliberately misrepresented as being
a reference to a family law court case in which a constituent was either
an applicant or a respondent. In fact the constituent was neither an
applicant nor a respondent in any such case.
6. I did not tell the Taoiseach as is alleged that “it would be
inappropriate and entirely improper” for either me or him” to “comment on
the case”. I stated as is clear in the letter that “I am sure your
constituent will under stand that it would be inappropriate for me to
comment on the family dispute that has arisen.”
Having accessed correspondence pursuant to a Freedom of Information Request
it is clear the Sunday Independent corrupted the content of that
correspondence to fabricate a contrived sensational story to generate a
front page headline for the papers commercial benefit. This was
deliberately done to damage the Taoiseach’s reputation, to represent me as
having admonished the Taoiseach in some way and to attract critical comment
from Oireachtas Members who had not read the correspondence concerned. I
am assuming that appropriate steps will be taken by the Sunday Independent
and Independent Newspapers to address the fictional presentation presented
on the front page of this morning’s paper, to publish an appropriate
apology and to correct the record