A three-judge High Court on July 17th will hear the challenge by gardai to the continuing inquiry by an Oireachtas sub-committee into the shooting dead of Mr John Carthy in Abbeylara, Co Longford.
A member of the subcommitee, Mr Alan Shatter TD, of Fine Gael, claimed in court yesterday the legal action was a deliberate attempt by the gardai to delay matters to such an extent that the work of the subcommittee would be impossible, given that it could only last as long as the present Dail.
Mr Justice Kelly yesterday disclosed he had asked the President of the High Court, Mr Justice Morris, to convene a divisional court to hear the proceedings and he had agreed. Mr Justice Kelly said the case raised issues of considerable importance with "far-reaching consequences".
The hearing will address the capacity of the Houses of the Oireachtas to conduct inquiries, and the outcome will have implications for the future role of all Oireachtas committees.
Mr Shatter, making submissions in a personal capacity, welcomed the setting of the date for the hearing but expressed concern that the legal proceedings were a deliberate attempt by gardai to frustrate the subcommittee's task. The sub-committee would last only for as long as the present Dail, which had less than a year to run.
He said the sub-committee had been "on hold" since the end of April when nine gardai had indicated they intended to apply to be exempted from appearing before it.
Mr Shatter said he was unaware whether the nine gardai had applied to the secretary-general of the Government for such exemptions and had no indication what, if any, decision, was taken in that regard.
Three weeks later, these proceedings were taken, the TD said. The gardai were now seeking more time and the court should be very restrictive regarding the time allowed.
On May 21st last, 36 gardai were given leave by the High Court to challenge the inquiry by the sub-committee of the Joint Oireachtas Committee on Justice, Equality, Defence and Women's Rights, which was set up following the death of Mr Carthy (27) at Abbeylara on April 24th, 2000. Mr Carthy was shot four times by members of the Emergency Response Unit after a 24-hour siege at his home.
Public hearings of the subcommittee began on April 24th last and were adjourned on April 30th for a month pending a ruling of the secretary general to the Government on whether certain gardai were exempted from giving evidence.
In their judicial review proceedings, the 36 gardai are challenging most aspects of the work of the sub-committee, including its powers to compel the attendance of witnesses and to direct the production of documents.
The case before Mr Justice Kelly yesterday was for the purpose of securing directions governing the proceedings.
Mr John Rogers SC, for the gardai, said he wished for more clarification from the respondents of their opposition to the proceedings. He said the statement of opposition did not identify the basis on which the sub-committee was asserting its jurisdiction to hold such an inquiry. The sub-committee was effectively saying the courts had no business whatsoever in relation to this matter and was seeking to make findings of fact but had not identified the source of its authority to do so.
Counsel said his side had written letters seeking to have the issues clarified. He also indicated he may need to file further affidavits and perhaps call evidence and seek to cross-examine witnesses. There were additional matters regarding discovery of documents. His side also wanted video recordings of the sub-committee hearings.
Mr Frank Clarke SC, for the sub-committee, said he had not yet seen correspondence from the other side regarding discovery and other matters. He needed to take instructions on the matters raised by Mr Rogers.
Mr Clarke stressed the subcommittee was finished once the Dail was dissolved and it could not conclude its business once that happened. This Dail could not last longer than another year. His side was anxious that the matter proceed.
Mr Shatter said he was concerned that part of the objective of the litigation was to prolong matters to such a degree as to make it impossible for the subcommittee to do its work, even if the courts found in favour of it. He was concerned the applicants were deliberately trying to delay the inquiry.
He rejected the complaints of Mr Rogers about lack of specificity in the statement of opposition and said it was in similar terms to many other statements filed in judicial review proceedings. The sub-committee was relying on the constitutional powers vested in parliament to conduct inquiries in a manner authorised by the Houses of the Oireachtas.
Mr Rogers said his side was equally anxious for a speedy hearing because it wanted certain issues resolved.
Mr Justice Kelly said all the parties agreed the case was urgent, as did he. The respondents had filed their opposition papers within the set timescales and while the applicants had been somewhat tardy in filing theirs, they had given an explanation.
The judge made directions to deal with discovery and other matters.
He will deal with some matters today and fixed Wednesday next for all other applications.
