HISTORY OF LITIGATION
Statement of Facts
This is about a serious miscarriage of Justice - corrupt administration of Justice, a judicial scandal far worse that the Sheedy affair and similar cases, 10 years of my and my sister’s lives have been destroyed and someone has to be held accountable for this.
The litigation consists of property matters and an assault on me and my sister.
Assault: This was an assault by my brother, John Shannon, who was trying to force me and my sister off our farm.
The assault took place in October 1994. I ended up in the intensive care with a deep fracture to my skull and a clot on my brain. I believe that my brother used his influence to have the case dismissed without being heard.
I enclose a copy of the letter of my solicitor to the D.P.P. dated 30 August 1995.
After the case was dismissed on 4 September 1995, I subsequently sacked the solicitor, Howley Carter and Co. Solicitors, Sligo.
Our probate case concerned the farm of my late mother who died 12 January 1994.
In a nutshell, I and my sister have lived and worked all our young lives on the farm. From 1980, in my own right, I had my own horse business and have continued on in possession to date, i.e. over 14 years before Testatrix’s death and to date 25 years. In 1980, I believed that I had an understanding/promise that the farm was to be mine, which I had to share with my sister, Gwen. In short, my mother was a Trustee for my sister and me. However, after my mother’s death I discovered that she had made a will leaving the farm to my brother John Shannon and some personal property.
On the legal advice of our solicitors we took a S117 Succession Act 1965 proceeding and had to lift the Caveat to let this proceeding take place.
From the beginning, I believed it was political influence my brother was using. However, since the beginning of 1996 our then solicitors (T. McEniry & Co, Dublin 2) began to see irregular things happening in re. Our cases - e.g. court lists and court evidence started to be tampered with.
At that stage, the said solicitor said that he believed that my brother-in-law Justice William Hamill was using his influence on other superior court judges to use their powers to pervert the course of justice. He told me this off the record. They feared that this influence could taint each and every case that came before the courts and they were right, e.g. re my assault case: approximately January 1996, he (my solicitor) discovered that medical evidence that was meant to go before the D.P.P. was tampered with. He sought by way of judicial review for mandamus, to discover to what extent the statements of gardai were altered before they got to the D.P.P.’s office. Leave for judicial review was granted by Judge Laffoy.
However, leading up to the hearing of the judicial review before Judge Peter Kelly on 20 March 1997 strange things started to happen. Court lists started to be tampered with, i.e. an application would be listed for a certain court and suddenly on the morning of the hearing the venue would be changed into a small court where there would not be witnesses present. In many cases, by the time our legal representatives would find the court (where the application was changed to) the other side would have been in and have got whatever application they were seeking and the judge would have left before we would get there (I found it frustrating as I would have travelled all the way from Sligo that morning and it never ceased to amaze me how the other side always knew where the changed court would be.
The opposing side are using Paddy Gageby, S.C., brother of Judge Susan Denham (Supreme Court Judge) as their senior counsel.
Judge Peter Kelly dismissed the Judicial review on 20 March 1997 on basis of no locus standi. I believe there was a serious MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE because of corruption in the administration of Justice.
In re property matters - similar miscarriages of Justice started to happen. On legal advice, I and my sister took a S117 Succession Act 1965 proceeding. The hearing came before Judge McCartan on 13 February 1997.
During the proceeding, the said Judge invited our legal reps into Private Chambers to discuss the remedy in re the decision he was going to make. Judge held that the Testatrix failed in moral duty to my sister but not to me so why did Judge alter the will regarding me?
I believed at the time that I was sold out by my senior counsel James Dwyer and I was right because subsequently on 28 August 2001 I applied ex parte for Leave for Judicial Review of the order of McCartan. I made this on 13 February 1997 and extension of time for same before Judge Finnegan. Said judge limited me to one ground "that a good part of the hearing was heard in Chambers where neither I, my sister nor our solicitor were present" on notice to the other side.
At the time, the opposing side would not hand over the transcripts. Judge Finnegan was not making an issue of the time limits given the nature of the order of Judge McCartan and expressed his concern that it would be a serious matter if any part of a hearing was discussed in Private Chambers. I enclose affidavit of Michael Grange (Civil Servant) filed 1 November 2002, who was a witness on the day.
Subsequently, on a request to the Data Protection Commissioner I managed to procure the elusive transcripts taken on 13 February 1997 before Judge McCartan that confirmed my case. I enclose relevant portion.
By this time, I was representing myself, as solicitors were objecting to have anything to do with the case because of the cartel of intrigue behind the scenes.
The above hearing (application for leave for judicial review) was to take place on 12 November 2001 before a Judge Peter Kelly.
However, prior to this my own senior counsel, James Dwyer, swore an affidavit for the opposing side against his own clients, saying no submissions/evidence was discussed in Chambers. However, when I confronted him with the transcripts he withdrew his evidence saying obviously the transcripts were the clearer version and a barrister could not be expected to remember clearly since they are not in a position to take notes.
On the 12 November 2001, the hearing came before Judge Peter Kelly. Suddenly, while waiting for our case to be called a court official was sent in by someone to take the Shannon case out of this court, which was full of witnesses.
We were brought into a small court with no-one there except me, my sister and the other side’s solicitor and senior counsel, P. Gageby, S.C.
A judge walked in introducing himself as Judge Kearns. I objected to us being in a court where there were no witnesses and asked for reasons. He ignored me. The other side’s barrister quickly introduced the case.
I relied on the transcripts and informed the court that I had contacted my senior counsel who had sworn the affidavit against me and he had effectively withdrawn his evidence. I also explained that the other side had refused to give me the transcripts till a day and a half before the hearing and if he thought it necessary we could adjourn to let me put it in a separate affidavit. He said it was not necessary to hold up things. I informed the court that they would not have the jurisdiction to rely on the affidavits of barristers, especially where one of them effectively withdrew his evidence and since my solicitor (on record for me in 1997) had made an affidavit confirming what was said in transcripts. He ignored the transcripts and my solicitor’s affidavit.
Leave was refused on the basis of the affidavits of the two barristers who went into private chambers. I appealed the latter to the Supreme Court. The hearing came before Justices Ronan Keane, Murphy and Murray and took place on 19 June 2002.
Murray seemed to be taking an interest. Ronan Keane adjourned for a few minutes. I heard him shouting at someone. When they came out Judge Murray was very subdued and never opened his mouth again.
I was refused on basis of affidavits of barristers despite I had written a letter to senior counsel withdrawing his evidence. I enclose affidavit of James Dwyer of 10 October 2001 and letter dated 8 January 2002. I challenged the decision of Chief Justice. The hearing was meant to come before Judge Susan Denham and Chief Justice Hardiman on 11 November 2002. However, while waiting for our case to be called the Chief Justice dismissed the case and told me that if I opened my mouth he would site me for contempt.
On a number of previous occasions before Ronan Keane, I had to personally ask him to recuse himself because of his animosity to and abuse of me.
I also tried to appeal the order of Judge McCartan but this never got heard despite my having lodged the notice of appeal in time. In this instance evidence was tampered with due to changeover of solicitors, no-one turned up for the appeal and it was struck out with leave to re-enter. The latter hearing took place on 11 August 1997 before a Judge Flood. On the day of the hearing the other side’s solicitor filed a nine-page affidavit outside the required time without serving in on any one. The solicitor on record for me had served and filed his affidavit and exhibits within the time limit but this evidence never got put before the Judge (Judge Flood).
The patter is that every time a judge commits a crime against me he is immediately rewarded with a promotion, e.g. Judge Flood was put at the head of the Tribunal immediately after refusing our application to reinstate our appeal of the order of Judge McCartan.
Around Spring 1997, I approached Dillon Leech Solicitors (Robert Potter-Cogan) for help in regards to my probate and assault cases. They first said I had very good cases. A week later they called me in to take the file. When I called to the office the said solicitor said that in fairness to me, he could not get justice for me because of the influence being used at the top level of the judiciary and he felt that under the circumstances he could not get involved. He said this off the record and I feel badly about repeating what he said in confidence but I must expose those people who have destroyed ten years of my young life; I have gone through the best part of £50,000 in fees and other related expenses not to mention the huge costs against me at this moment.
An Ejectment hearing was brought by the other side against me and my sister. This came before Judge C. Moran on 7 April 2000 at Sligo Circuit Court.
Halfway through the case the other side called a surprise witness (Dr. R Hamill). The judge adjourned the hearing and went into chambers. He sent a court official out to my barrister outside the courthouse to tell him that he was a friend of the husband of the witness against our side.
The barrister felt he left it a bit too late to tell us and felt we couldn’t possibly lose our case at that stage given evidence already before court and he couldn’t guarantee that he would be available next time round to represent me.
We had brought our case in proprietary c. stoppell and undue influence. The other side opposed this, two of their key witnesses (Dr. R. Hamill, wife of Judge’s friend and Rev. M. Shannon, brother) stated that my mother had not made a promise/understanding with me re the farm and did not encourage or want me at any time on the farm either before or after her death. In effect I was a squatter for over fourteen years before Testatrix’s death. Either way Testatrix had no farm to give to any one at the date of death. That’s how watertight my case is.
When we went back into court, it was discovered that the friend of the Judge was directly involved with the handling of the property matters of the Testatrix. Our counsel on a number of occasions asked the judge to have the case dismissed on the grounds of unlawful and illegal behaviour of the other side and he was ignored. From then on the judge did not listen to a word he said and did not seek to hide this fact.
In the end the judge gave the decision in favour of the other side saying that he was putting a heavy weight on the evidence of his friend’s wife. He then went on to threaten us with immediate eviction if we tried to appeal against him.
Consequently, I appealed ex parte for Leave for Judicial Review of his order within 10 days. This application came before Judge Finnegan on 17 April 2000. The latter said I had 3/4 good grounds for appeal and Judge Moran would not have the constitutional power to frustrate an appeal and he invited appeal.
The other side’s junior counsel who happened to be present objected so I had to apply for extension of time to appeal and get a stay on eviction pending hearing of appeal. My then solicitors Hughes and Liddy Solicitors, Dublin and their junior counsel explained to me on that day that my brother in-law Judge William Hamill was using his influence with superior court judges to get them to use their power to pervert the course of justice. They named a number of judges including Judges P. Kelly, Kearns, McCracken, C. Moran and McCartan. They also said that he (my brother-in-law) was harassing young junior counsels at night-time who were connected with the case.
Subsequently, I reapplied ex parte for Leave for Judicial Review of Ejectment order of Judge C. Moran made 7 April 2000. The application came before Judge McKeehnie on 3 September 2002. This judge said if only half your statement and supporting affidavit is true then you have very good grounds for review. He set the hearing before himself for 14 October 2002 on notice to the other side.
On 14 October 2002, I arrived from Sligo to the Four Courts only to be told that McKeehnie was gone down the countryside and the case was for mention in another court before a Judge O’Caoimh. In fact that day I found McKeehnie in another court in the four courts dealing with another case.
The other side was looking for extension of time to put in a replying affidavit and had no problem getting same. I was only half a day late putting in my appeal and I was refused extension of time. The hearing came before O’Caoimh on 11 November 2002. He refused leave on the day and young barristers at the back of the room asked why this judge had such animosity and bias to me.
I appealed refusal of Leave to Supreme Court. A number of applications were make by the other side leading up to the hearing of appeal, e.g. on 16 May 2003 they applied for extension of time to cross appeal me on a time limit and an Issac Wunder order. Judge Ronan Keane granted them their application although I thought I had won the Motion opposing. I wrote a letter of complaint to the Supreme Court office. The tapes had disappeared and I was told that the Registrar had resigned.
The appeal came before Supreme Court with Hardiman, Geoghegan and Herbert presiding on 9 December 2004.
This appeal was meant to be heard in the Supreme Court but the day before the hearing the new registrar phoned up to say it was to take place in a small court to the side. Again we were tricked; the court had just ourselves present and not witnesses.
When I tried to open up my submissions, case law and affidavits to prove my case I was cited with contempt. I complained that the other side’s counsel P. Gageby was allowed to open up any affidavit he wanted and to cite case law. They just said we asked him to.
I complained more than five times that the court was biased and unfair. They were trying to argue the case for the other side and doing all they could to trip me up. I was ignored.
The first time I ever encountered Judge Ronan Keane, when my application concerning the reinstatement of the appeal of the order of Judge McCartan was called on 26 November 2001, the said judge commented "Oh, I have heard a lot about you Miss Shannon" and dismissed an appeal which was listed for two months later. In other words, that appeal was frustrated and never got heard. I also saw him winking to my brother at the back of the courtroom and looked behind at him; he was grinning from ear to ear.
In short, in re our probate cases, there were two proceedings:
Out of these two proceedings arose appeals which never got heard. There were two applications for Leave for Judicial Review yet the other side managed to get a type of Issac Wunder order against me from the Supreme Court on the 9 December 2004.
Another example of evidence being tampered with was on 1 September 1997. I had procured the services of a P. Enright, Solicitor, Castleisland, Co. Kerry. On 28 and 29 August 1997 I and my sister met the above solicitor in Enfield, Co. Meath in the presence of Billy Flynn, private investigator.
During the course of the meeting solicitor Enright phoned Co. Registrar Kieran McDermot at the Sligo Circuit Court Office regarding our case. He commented that this man had a red hatred for me and my sister and asked why. He also said that he was most uncooperative.
On the 1 September 1997, Mr. Enright told me that he had contacted the High Court, Dublin to get certain affidavits off the file relating to the S117 Succession hearing before Judge McCartan on 13 February 1997. The High Court told him that the file was sent back to Sligo Circuit Office.
Consequently, he asked me to go to Sligo to collect the said documents. I arrived in Sligo Circuit Court Office at approximately 10.00 am on 1 September 1997 only to be told by a court official that the file had arrived for the Co. Registrar but had not been opened and I was advised to wait until he came in himself.
The said registrar arrived at approximately 11.00 am. I saw him open the file and remove documents, which I believe were the said affidavits. He put them in an envelope and came out to the counter and handed them to a solicitor by the name of Carter of Howley, Carter & Co., Sligo. On receiving the envelope the latter solicitor invited the registrar out for a drink to celebrate and the registrar left abruptly.
I asked the court official to check the file for the affidavits as I had seen the registrar open the package with the file. She did as I asked and could not find the affidavits.
I also found out from my solicitor, Mr. Enright, that this same registrar had told the other side’s solicitor that I had contacted him before the Appeal on 26 June 1997 of the order of Judge McCartan and he said that I had told him that I was withdrawing the appeal. This of course is not true. I never contacted him at all.
My solicitor (Enright) complained on many occasions that he was getting incorrect and misleading information from the Sligo Circuit Court Office, e.g. he was informed that the Ejectment hearing before Judge Moran (7 April 2000) was on the week before the actual date. He had come all the way from Kerry with witnesses and a barrister only to be told that the hearing was the week after.
This registrar has a hidden agenda in making sure we fail in our cases because his two children work for Howley, Carter & Co. Solicitors, Sligo and I had to sack Carter for breach of contract and inadequate handling of our cases at the end of 1995. The said registrar is also the sheriff and has constantly harassed us with threat of eviction.
Another example of intrigue behind the scenes: in August 1997 I and my sister visited Mr. P. Nugent who was the registrar for Judge Flood on 11 August 1997. We wanted information as to why the appeal of McCartan’s order was not reinstated and we explained that we (the clients) were not told of the date of the hearing. He was angry and threatened to have us thrown out of the Four Courts and said that the appeal would not be reinstated.
On another occasion, shortly after 17 April 2000 when I had just been before Judge Finnegan on an ex parte application for Leave for Judicial Review of the Ejectment order of Judge C. Moran, I told him (Nugent) that I had just been before Judge Finnegan and I still had not got the affidavit of the other side’s solicitor for reinstatement of the appeal of the order of Judge McCartan.
Nugent seemed to go into a state of panic. I overheard his telephone conversation with John Dalton (then Supreme Court registrar). Nugent referred to our case and said, "John, I’ve just heard Finnegan knows - what will I do?" John seemed to be trying to calm him down. He then left the phone down and said to me to go up to the Supreme Court that they had something for me. They handed me a case called PVP 31 July 2001. I didn’t understand what this meant but when I had got back to Nugent’s office he was gone.
Another example of court lists being changed at the last moment by someone - this happened on 12 January 2004. The other side had brought a Motion to amend the order of Judge O’Caoimh made on 11 November 2002 (which refused my application for leave for judicial review of the Ejectment order of Judge C. Moran made on 7 April 2000) to include the affidavit of the note taken in the recital of the order as per 0.28 R.S.C. It was initially meant to be before Judge O’Caoimh in Court 11. On the morning of the hearing it was changed into a small court at the entrance of the Four Courts. There was just me, my sister and the junior counsel for the other side. I raised the issue of us being in the court by ourselves with no witnesses and I was ignored.
I said to the Judge that the issue before the court was already clarified in the Supreme Court on 28 November 2003. In addition, it was now out of the remit of the High Court and they could not amend in any case under 0.28 R.S.C. and therefore, the other side would not lawfully be entitled to amend the order in those circumstances. The judge simply answered "nevertheless, I am granting them their Motion".
The reason I am speaking now is that I have initiated a Squatters Rights/Adverse Possession Issue before the Circuit Court, which is now on appeal to the High Court. I am sure the same patter of a miscarriage of justice will take place unless we have a number of watchdogs present in the courtroom. The above issue is essentially the other side’s own argument. This latter arose during the course of the Ejectment proceeding on cross-examination of the other side’s own key witnesses. A note taker that I had on the day has made a record of this.
A group of approximately fifty people who have suffered a similar fate to mine have formed a club. They are currently organising a march on the Government to highlight same as it is the Government that chooses these judges and it is the taxpayer who pays for them.
I am not complaining because I am unhappy with the orders but rather that the orders are perverse because of the corrupt administration of justice. There has been a miscarriage of justice.
The oldest trick in the book is to clock up as many costs against the client then drop it in their laps and force a quick sale of the property. I emphasise the word "quick".
Signed: Elizabeth Shannon
Date: January 2005