Three interesting things in the Supreme Court statement. (1) By sub-contracting the review to retired CJ Susan Denham, whose fair-mindedness nobody will question, the judges are applying one of the lessons of the 1999 Sheedy Affair: the court cannot sit in judgment on its own

When researching my book, I learned that there was a first draft of the 1999 report by CJ Liam Hamilton. When colleagues saw it, two of them felt it was too soft and threatened to resign. It was re-written and O’Flaherty was left with no option. Relationships never recovered.

(2) The statement was issued in the name of the court, not the CJ. It’s a collective (but not necessarily unanimous) decision, and one that was discussed at length by phone within the group

(3) The judges are furious that the Govt hasn’t activated (“commenced” in the jargon) the Judicial Council Act, which has investigative/conduct provisions that are designed to deal with precisely this type of scenario

It will be an unusual “review”: based on what we know, there is no real dispute about the facts. I think Woulfe’s fate will turn on (a) the language Denham uses in her commentary and (b) whether Phil Hogan stays or goes

As a sidenote, there is only one person who connects the 1999 court with this story: Denham herself. She played the role of diplomatic go-between when tempers frayed during the O’Flaherty scandal, and is one of only three members of that court who are still alive