A High Court judge has said there was "entirely improper interference" involving a political representative and a judge in a family law case.
In a judgment made in July and officially released this evening, Mr Justice Henry Abbott recounted that he asked the mother in the case, who was in dispute with her former husband over custody of their child, if she had contacted a member of Dáil Éireann after he had made an order transferring custody of the child to the father.
Mr Justice Abbott wrote that he asked the woman if she “asked a Dáil deputy to make inquiries for her in relation to the matter from the judge, and that that Dáil deputy sought the services of a Circuit Court judge to ask me was it a fact that Edward [not the child’s real name] had been sent away to the primary care of the father.”
Mr Justice Abbott continued: “She agreed that she had made that approach to the Dáil Deputy and apologised on the basis that it was at a time when she was unrepresented. I informed the court that on being asked the question by the Circuit Court judge (quite improperly), I replied that a judgment would issue on the web in due course in relation to the matter.”
The High Court judge wrote that he indicated to the parties that “notwithstanding the entirely improper interference of mother via political representative and judge”, he did not propose to disqualify himself from the case.
He recounted that the parties then authorised him to speak to the child in question, indicating “consensus of the parties that I should continue to act, notwithstanding this impropriety by mother and her fellow actors.”
The presidents of the High Court and Circuit Court carried out an investigation this week when it emerged that Mr Justice Henry Abbott had alleged an improper approach was made to him by a Circuit Court judge.
The presidents, who identified the Circuit Court judge as Desmond Hogan, said the discussion between the two men should not have happened but concluded that the conversation, which took place in the Four Courts yard in 2010, had no influence on rulings in the case.
