Gormley v Ireland

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: Mr. Justice Murphy
• Judgment Date: 01 January 1993
• Neutral Citation: 1991 WJSC-HC 610
• Docket Number: [1985 No. 10355P],No 10355P/1985
• Court: High Court
• Date: 01 January 1993

GORMLEY v. IRELAND & AG

BETWEEN

BART GORMLEY

PLAINTIFF

AND

IRELAND, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, THE MINISTER FORCOMMUNICATIONS AND AN POST

DEFENDANTS

1991 WJSC-HC 610

No 10355P/1985

THE HIGH COURT

Synopsis:

PRACTICE

Documents

Discovery - Inspection - Privilege - Public interest - Government - Departmental papers - Executive privilege - Examination of documents - Public interest in retention of confidentiality of Government papers - Public interest in facilitating citizen's right of recourse to Courts - Production of selected documents - Distribution restricted to solicitor and counsel - (1985/10355 P - Murphy J. - 7/3/91)- [1993] 2 I.R. 75

|Gormley v. Ireland|

WORDS AND PHRASES

"Public interest"

Government - Documents - Contents - Disclosure - Confidential departmental papers - Rights of plaintiff - Recourse to Courts - Conflicting public interests - (1985/10355 P - Murphy J. - 7/3/91)- [1993] 2 I.R. 75

|Gormley v. Ireland|

Citations:

OFFENCES AGAINST THE STATE ACT 1939

OFFENCES AGAINST THE STATE ACT 1940

1 Judgment of Mr. Justice Murphydelivered the 7th day of March 1991.

2 This is yet another case in which the Court has been called upon to inspect a number of documents in respect of which executive privilege has been claimed to ascertain whether in relation to each and every of those documents the interest of the State based on that claim outweighs the right of the individual litigant to have access to the documents in connection with the exercise of his constitutional right to assert in an appropriate fashion his legal rights before the Courts.

3 In the present case the Plaintiff claims that from 1953 he had been employed as a Clerical Officer by the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs. That on the 7th of July 1957 he was interned at the Curragh Camp under or by virtue of the Offences Against the State Act 1939or the regulations made thereunder. That on the 8th of August 1957 he was suspended from his duties by the Minister without pay andwithout any reason being given for his suspension. That he was released from internment in November 1958 and that between the date of his release and April 1983 the Defendants refused to lift his suspension unless and until he signed a declaration in the following form:-

"To undertake to respect the Constitution of Ireland and the law and to declare that he would not be a member of, nor assist any organisation which was an unlawful organisation under the Offences Against the State Act 1939".

4 Again the Plaintiff asserts that between 1958 and 1983 he declined to sign that declaration on the grounds, or so he claimed, that:-

"by virtue of never having been a member of any unlawful organisation and also by reason of the failure of the Defendants and each of them and the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs to give him the reason for his suspension or to offer him any reasons or opportunity to answer any allegations or charges of misconduct on his part under which the same may have been based".

5 In February 1983 the Plaintiff did make the declaration quoted above and was restored to his duties as Clerical Officer at Castlebar, County Mayo. The Plaintiff is now seeking a declaration that he is entitled to a salary which will reflect his actual chronological age and without any interruption for the period of his suspension from duties.

6 A joint defence has been delivered on behalf of thefirst, second and thirdly named Defendants and a separate defence has been filed on behalf of the fourthly named Defendants "An Post". The defence filed on behalf of the first three Defendants denies each and every of the claims made by or on behalf of the Plaintiff. Those Defendants deny that the Plaintiff was employed as a Clerical Officer since 1953. They denied the Plaintiff was interned as alleged or at all. They denied that the Plaintiff was suspended by the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs. They denied that the Defendants neglected or refused to lift the suspension unless such a declaration as aforesaid was signed by the Plaintiff. They denied that the Defendants failed to lift the suspension. They denied that the Plaintiff was not prepared to sign the declaration or that he was not prepared to sign it for the reasons alleged by him and in particular they deny...