ANALYSIS:The High Court has further circumscribed parliamentary inquiries
FOR THE second time in recent years, the courts have decided that a committee of the Oireachtas has breached a person’s constitutional rights, or is in danger of doing so.
In Murphy -v- Ardagh, a member of An Garda Síochána challenged an inquiry into the shooting of John Carthy in Abbeylara, Co Longford, being conducted by an Oireachtas committee under the chairmanship of Seán Ardagh.
The Supreme Court found in 2002 that the Oireachtas had no power to conduct an inquiry which could lead to adverse findings against an individual, not a member of the Oireachtas, that might affect his or her good name.
In the Ivor Callely case, the inquiry carried out by a committee of the Seanad concerned a member of the Oireachtas, and the committee had argued that this meant it was not affected by Ardagh, as the Oireachtas was in charge of running its own affairs under Article 15.10 of the Constitution.
However, the High Court stated clearly yesterday that the constitutionally protected autonomy of the Oireachtas does not extend to denying a person natural justice or his or her constitutional rights.
Mr Justice Iarfhlaith O’Neill stated unequivocally: “The standards of natural justice and fair procedure cannot be displaced by a ‘political judgment’ simply because the person affected is a member of the Oireachtas.”
So what does this mean for parliamentary inquiries? And what does it mean for Callely?
It does not mean parliamentary inquiries cannot take place, but it does mean that they must be conducted in accordance with the principles of natural justice and fair procedures, with any individual appearing before them entitled to every opportunity to defend his or her good name.
This may prove a challenge for members of the Oireachtas, who are not trained in acting in a judicial manner, and whose natural instinct in engaging in such inquiries, especially if they are conducted in public, is to grandstand. Most parliamentary inquiries are likely to be on controversial matters, so the temptation to play to the gallery would be all the greater. This will have to be resisted if parliamentary inquiries are to survive judicial scrutiny.
The High Court ruling also means that Oireachtas committees of inquiry are open to review by the courts. This in itself may impose constraints on how they are conducted.
As it happens, the Oireachtas Committee on the Constitution is conducting hearings at the moment on the parliamentary power of inquiry, and has taken evidence from a number of constitutional experts.
One such expert, Donncha O’Connell of NUI Galway, gave evidence earlier this week where he suggested that the Oireachtas should “outsource” inquiries to constitutionally protected bodies like the Comptroller and Auditor General, who would then report to the Oireachtas or one of its committees. He pointed out that this was how the widely praised Dirt inquiry of 1999-2000 worked, with the Public Accounts Committee working from a preliminary report prepared by the Comptroller and Auditor General.
The office of the Ombudsman could be given such a role, he suggested.
Whatever the committee on the Constitution may come up with, it is likely to be some time before another Oireachtas committee inquires into an individual’s conduct.
As for Callely, he will return to court the week after next, where he will certainly claim reimbursement of the pay he lost, and it is hard to see him not getting it.
Further compensation may be more difficult, since he already has an unequivocal statement from the High Court repairing any damage to his reputation caused by the Seanad decision.