Goodman International v Hamilton (No. 2)

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judgment Date: 18 February 1993
• Date: 18 February 1993
• Docket Number: [1992 No. 375 J.R.]
• Court: High Court

High Court

[1992 No. 375 J.R.]

Goodman International v. Hamilton (No. 2)

Goodman International and Laurence Goodman, Applicants

and

The Honourable Mr. Justice Liam Hamilton, sole Member of the Tribunal of Inquiry into the Beef Processing Industry

Respondent

The Attorney General, Dick Spring, Pat Rabbitte and Tomás MacGiolla, Notice Parties (No. 2)

Cases mentioned in this report:—

The Attorney General v. Hamilton (No. 2) [1993] 3 I.R. 227

Goodman International v. Mr. Justice Hamilton [1992] 2 I.R. 542; [1992] I.L.R.M. 145.

In re Haughey [1971] I.R. 217.

Constitution - Parliamentary privilege - Non-amenability - Members of Dáil Éireann éireann - Utterances in the Dáil - Allegations against applicants - Tribunal of inquiry - Allegations repeated before tribunal - Refusal of deputies to reveal sources of information upon which allegations based - Whether deputies liable to answer questions in relation to utterances in Dáil - Constitutional rights and privileges of members of Dáil - Whether constitutional protection attached to statements made to tribunal - Constitution of Ireland, 1937, Article 15, ss. 12 and 13.

Constitution - Personal rights - Tribunal of inquiry - Allegations made against applicants - Refusal of persons making allegations to reveal identity of informants - Good name - Whether tribunal in breach of duty to vindicate applicants' good names - Whether obliged to terminate all further inquiry into matters touching upon good name of applicants - Whether right to confront accusers - Constitution of Ireland, 1937, Article 40, s. 3, sub-s. 2

Judicial review.

The facts are summarised in the headnote and are fully set out in the judgment of Geoghegan J., post.

On the 21st December, 1992, on the ex parte motion of the applicants, leave was granted by the High Court to apply by way of judicial review for, inter alia, the following reliefs:—

• 1. Declarations that Article 15 of the Constitution did not permit Deputies Rabbitte or Spring or former Deputy MacGiolla to refuse to answer questions at the Tribunal relating to the sources of the allegations made by them and that none of the deputies or former deputy was entitled to refuse to answer any such questions;

• 2. A declaration that the respondent could not lawfully proceed with any inquiry into allegations in respect of which the said deputies had refused to answer questions;

• 3. A declaration that a constitutionally complete inquiry had been frustrated and prevented by virtue of the refusals ofWorld in Action and Susan O'Keeffe to provide material, information and evidence to the Tribunal and by the claim to parliamentary privilege by the said deputies and former deputy;

• 4. A declaration that the said deputies and former deputy could not lawfully give testimony to the Tribunal save in accordance with the rules of evidence;

• 5. A declaration that the Tribunal, in the circumstances that had arisen, could not make any finding adverse to the good names or reputations of the applicants.

Following the filing of notices of opposition on the 11th January, 1993, and the 22nd January, 1993, by the respondent and the third and fourth notice parties respectively, and the filing of an affidavit by the second notice party on the 29th January, 1993, the application was heard before the High Court (Geoghegan J.) on the 26th and 27th January, 1993.

Article 40, s. 3, sub-s. 2 of the Constitution of Ireland, 1937, provides, inter alia as follows:—

"The State shall . . . by its laws protect as best it may from unjust attack and, in the case of injustice done, vindicate the . . . good name . . . of every citizen."

Article 15 of the Constitution of Ireland, 1937, provides, inter alia, as follows:—

"12. All official reports and publications of the Oireachtas or of either House thereof and utterances made in either House wherever published shall be privileged.

13. The members of each House of the Oireachtas . . . shall not, in respect of any utterance in either House, be amenable to any court or any authority other than the House itself."

On the 13th May, 1991, a television programme called World in Action was broadcast by G. Ltd., in the course of which allegations were made that the applicants had been involved in irregularities in the beef processing industry. On various dates in May, 1991, allegations in similar terms were made in the Dáil by the second, third and fourth notice parties. On the 24th May, 1991, Dáil Éireann éireann passed a resolution establishing a Tribunal to inquire into "[a]llegations concerning illegal activities, fraud and malpractice in and in connection with the beef processing industry made or referred to in (a) Dáil Éireann éireann and (b) on a television programme transmitted on May 13th, 1991". By order dated the 31st May, 1991, the Minister for Agriculture and Food appointed the respondent as sole member of the Tribunal of Inquiry.

The second, third and fourth notice parties made written statements to the Tribunal wherein the speeches which they had made to the Dáil were set out and clarified, but indicated to the Tribunal that they were unwilling to reveal the identity of the persons who had supplied them with the information on the basis of which the allegations had been made. G. Ltd. and O'K., the journalist who had made the World in Actionprogramme, also indicated to the Tribunal that they would not reveal the identities of their informants or release to the Tribunal certain unused material connected with the programme.

On the 10th December, 1992, the respondent made a ruling to the effect, inter alia,that under and by virtue of Article 15 of the Constitution, where a member of the Oireachtas furnished statements of evidence to a tribunal of inquiry in which utterances made before the Oireachtas were repeated, such member of the Oireachtas could not be obliged to reveal to such tribunal the source of the information upon which the utterances were based.

The applicants were granted leave by the High Court to apply for judicial review of the ruling, on the grounds that it was wrong in law, or in the alternative, that if it was correct, then the applicants were entitled pursuant to Article 40, s. 3 of the Constitution to, inter alia, an immediate ruling vindicating their good names in respect of all of the allegations made against them.

In the High Court it was submitted on behalf of the applicants, inter alia, that sight of the unused material compiled by G. Ltd. in the course of making the World in Actionprogramme, and knowledge of the identity of the second, third and fourth notice parties' informants, were essential, and that in the premises, the applicants had not been afforded certain of the protections identified by Ó Dálaigh ó dálaigh C.J. in In re Haughey[1971] I.R. 217to which a person whose good name was under attack was entitled, and in particular, the right of such person to cross-examine his accuser. It was further submitted that, accordingly, if the respondent's ruling was correct, then in the light of the said ruling and the refusal of G. Ltd. to disclose the identities of its informants, the Tribunal was in breach of its obligation under Article 40, s. 3 of the Constitution to vindicate the applicants' good names by not...