Supreme Court stalls Curtin inquiry

GARDAÍ were aware, some months prior to Judge Brian Curtin’s appointment in 2001 as a Circuit Court judge, of “electronic transmissions” and the “matters now being investigated” by a Joint Oireachtas Committee set up to investigate the judge’s alleged misbehaviour, the Supreme Court was told yesterday.

Gardaí were aware of these matters in August 2001 and Judge Curtin was not appointed to the Circuit Court until November 2001, John Rogers SC, for Judge Curtin, said. However, nothing was done “in the context of a judicial appointment” in 2001 and the State could not now complain about delays in the committee’s investigation.

Judge Curtin, he said, had been acquitted last year on charge of possessing child pornography and he stood over that acquittal.

Mr Rogers made those claims when successfully seeking an extension of a stay on the investigation by a Joint Committee of the House of the Oireachtas pending the outcome of the appeal to the Supreme Court against the High Court’s rejection of his challenge to the mechanism adopted for that investigation.

Donal O’Donnell SC, for the State, said it was not correct to say the State had known about matters since 2001 and it was neither correct nor fair to say nothing was done by the State.

He said the judge was appointed in 2001 and proceedings brought against him later. Since then, Judge Curtin had initiated several sets of legal proceedings and adjournments had been occasioned by him.

The Supreme Court heard the Joint Committee was established in July 2004 and had worked for six months until Judge Curtin initiated his legal proceedings. The investigation had been at a standstill since.

Yesterday’s application by Mr Rogers for a continuing stay was resisted by Una Ní Raifeartaigh, for the Joint Committee.

Given that important constitutional issues were involved, Ms Justice McGuinness, presiding over the three-judge court, said it would grant the stay pending the outcome of the appeal. The court agreed the appeal should be heard as quickly as possible, she said. The court would raise with the Chief Justice the issue of an early date.

Having heard books of appeal had been lodged, the court directed all parties to file written legal submissions within four weeks and returned the matter for mention to July 1.

Mr Rogers said the appeal could last seven days but Mr O’Donnell said he didn’t believe it should take that long. She also directed that the Joint Committee could meet but could not go ahead with its investigation.

In the High Court on May 3, Mr Justice Thomas Smyth rejected Judge Curtin’s challenge to the establishment of the Joint Committee to investigate and gather evidence in relation to the judge’s alleged misbehaviour.