Maguire v Ardagh

JurisdictionIreland
CourtSupreme Court
JudgeKEANE C.J., Denham J., MR JUSTICE FRANCIS D MURPHY, MURRAY J, Mrs Justice McGuinness, GEOGHEGAN J.
Judgment Date11 Apr 2002
Neutral Citation[2002] IESC 21
Docket Number[2001

[2002] IESC 21

THE SUPREME COURT

KEANE CJ

DENHAM J

MURPHY J

MURRAY J

MCGUINNESS J

HARDIMAN J

GEOGHEGAN J

324, 326, 333, 334/01
ARDAGH & ORS v. MAGUIRE & ORS

BETWEEN

SEAN ARDAGH, MONICA BARNES, BRENDAN HOWLIN, MICHAELMOYNIHAN, MARIAN McGENNIS, ALAN SHATTER, DENIS O'DONOVAN, THOMASENRIGHT, BEVERLEY COOPER-FLYNN, FRANCE FITZGERALD, JOHN MCGUINNESS, JANO'SULLIVAN, BILLY TIMMINS, EDDIE WADE, GEORGE V WRIGHT, EDDIE BOHAN,HELEN KEOGH, TONY KETT AND KATHLEEN O'MEARA BEING THE MEMBERS FOR THETIME BEING OF THE OIREACHTAS JOINT COMMITTEE ON JUSTICE EQUALITY DEFENCEAND WOMEN'S RIGHTS, IRELAND AND THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
APPELLANTS

AND

MARTIN MAGUIRE, FRANK McHUGH, TOM DOOLEY, MARY MANGAN,DAN MONAGHAN, ANTHONY FOLEY, JAMES QUINN, ALAN MURRAY, MAEVE GORMAN,JOHN GIBBONS, COLIN WHITE, JACK KILROY, GERRY BARNES, EUGENE DUNNE,JUSTIN BORWNE, EUGENE BOLAND, JAMES CAMPBELL, MICHAEL JACKSON, GERRYRUSSELL, MICHAEL O'SULLIVAN, AIDAN McCABE, WILLIAM SISK, RONAN CAREY,TONY RYAN, JOSEPH FINNEGAN, OLIVER FLAHERTY, DESMOND MALLEY, PETEREARLEY, OLIVER CASSIDY, DAVID MARTIN, MARY ANN O'BOYLE, TURLOUGH BUREN,JOHN BOYLE, BLAITHIN MORAN, SINEAD CONNIFFE AND FRANKREYNOLDS
RESPONDENTS

Synopsis:

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW

Judicial review

Fair procedures - Separation of powers - Oireachtas - D�il �ireann -Jurisdiction of courts -Garda S�och�na - Inquiry by sub-committee - Attendance of witnesses - Compellability - Bias - Whether proposed inquiry ultra vires - Whether courts could intervene in inquiry - Committees of the Houses of the Oireachtas (Compellability, Privileges And Immunities Of Witnesses) Act, 1997 - Bunreacht na h�ireann, 1937 (324;326; 333 & 340/2001 - Supreme Court - 11/4/2002)

Ardagh v Maguire - [2002] 1 IR 447

Facts: The applicants, members of An Garda S�och�na, had been involved in an incident at Abbeylara in which a young man was shot dead. The respondents as members of an Oireachtas sub-committee sought to inquire into the incident and purported to call the applicants to give evidence before them. The applicants instituted judicial review proceedings seeking to challenge the actions of the respondents and sought a declaration that the proposed inquiry was ultra vires the powers of the Houses of the Oireachtas. The applicants challenged the jurisdiction of the committee to carry out the inquiry and claimed that there had been a failure to comply with the provisions of the Committees of the Houses of the Oireachtas (Compellability, Privileges And Immunities Of Witnesses) Act, 1997. The High Court, sitting as a divisional court, gave judgment in favour of the applicants. Nowhere in the Constitution was there a provision that provided that such an inquiry was immune from review. Persons could only be compelled to take part in Parliamentary inquiries, be subjected to cross-examination and the possibility of adverse findings if the committee was acting within jurisdiction. There was no inherent power in parliament to conduct an inquiry involving adjudicative functions of the type the sub-committee had sought to exercise. Such a power did not exist under the present constitutional regime nor did it exist under the Constitution of the Free State of 1922. The members of the sub-committee appealed.

Held by the Supreme Court (delivering seven separate judgments) in dismissing the appeal in a majority verdict. Keane CJ held that the conclusion of the High Court that there was no inherent power to hold such inquiries was wrong in principle and irreconcilable with previous caselaw. The appeal should be allowed. Denham J held that the Constitution gave no power, explicit or implied, to the members of the Houses of the Oireachtas to hold such an inquiry. The appeal would not be allowed. Murphy J held that the Committees of the Houses of the Oireachtas (Compellability, Privileges And Immunities Of Witnesses) Act, 1997 empowered a committee or sub-committee of the Oireachtas to compel the attendance before it of any person required to give evidence and to produce any document. The constitutionality of the 1997 Act had not been challenged. The appeal should be allowed in its entirety. Murray J held that the Oireachtas did not have the power to establish committees of inquiry to make findings of fact and reach conclusions involving the personal culpability of individual citizens for alleged wrongdoing of the gravest kind thereby impugning the good name of a citizen. The appeal should be disallowed. McGuinness J held that the appeal would not be allowed, however the form of declaration granted by the High Court was too wide. The declaratory relief should only relate to the inquiry in issue.

1

11TH DAY OF APRIL, 2002BYKEANE C.J.

KEANE C.J.
INTRODUCTION.
2

This is an appeal from a judgment and order of a divisional court of the High Court (Morris P, Carroll J and Kelly J) which effectively brought to an end an inquiry being conducted by a sub-committee (hereafter "the Committee") which had been purportedly established by a Joint Committee of both Houses of the Oireachtas to inquire into what has become generally known as "the Abbeylare incident." The appellants are the members for the time being of the Oireachtas Joint Committee, Ireland and the Attorney General. The respondents are all members of An Garda S�och�na, some or all of whom received directions from the Committee to attend before and give evidence to theCommittee.

3

The incident which gave rise to the purported inquiry being held by the Committee occurred on the 19th/20th April at Tonymore, Abbeylara, Co. Longford. It culminated in a 27 year old man named John Carthy being shot dead by one or more members of the GardaS�ch�na.

4

The proceedings in the High Court began with an application to Butler J on the 21st May 2001 on behalf of the respondents for liberty to apply for a number of reliefs by way of judicial review, including:

5

(a) declarations that the conduct of an inquiry of this nature was ultra vires the powers of the Houses of the Oireachtas,

6

(b) a declaration that the Committee was acting ultra viresthe powers conferred by the relevant resolutions of D�il and Seanad �ireann of 25th October 2000 and of the relevantlegislation,

7

(c) orders of ceritori quashing that resolution and other resolutions and orders of the Committee and of a body called the CompellabilityCommittee,

8

(d) a declaration that the procedures adopted by the Committee did not comply with the requirements of natural and constitutional justiceand;

9

(e) a stay on the proceedings of the Committee.

10

Leave having been granted and statements of opposition having been filed on behalf of the appellants, the substantive proceedings came on for hearing before the divisional court. In a reserved judgment delivered on the 23rd November 2001, the divisional court granted all but one of the reliefs being sought by the respondents. Those of the appellants who are members of the Joint Committee referred to in the title of the proceedings have appealed to this court from the entire of the judgment and order of the High Court. Theappeal brought by the Attorney General and Ireland is confined to that part of the judgment which granted a declaration that the conduct of a public inquiry such as this by members of the Oireachtas was ultravires the powers of the Houses of the Oireachtas.

THE HISTORY OF THE INQUIRY
11

The proceedings in both Houses of the Oireachtas and its various committees which culminated in the hearings before the Committee are set out in considerable detail in the judgment of the divisional court, as is the history of the hearings up to the time at which the proceedings in the High Court were initiated.

12

Before I embark on the history of those events, I should refer to the position in law of the committee referred to in the title, i.e., the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Justice, Equality, Defence and Women's Rights, It was established pursuant to Order 78 of the Standing Orders of the D�il which empowers the D�il to

"appoint a select committee to consider and, if so permitted, to take evidence upon any bill, estimate or matter, and to report its opinion for the information and assistance of theD�il."

13

Order 78 also provided that

"Such a motion shall specifically state the orders of reference of the committee, define the powers devolved upon it, fix the number of members to serve on it, state the quorum, and may appoint a date upon which the committee shall report back to theD�il."

14

A power in identical language, mutantis mutadis, is conferred on the Seanad by Order 64 of its standing orders.

15

The D�, in pursuance of the power conferred on them, adopted Orders of Reference appointing a select committee ultimately called "the Select Committee on Justice, Equality, Defence and Women's Rights." That Committee was to be joined with a select committee to be appointed by Seanad �ireann to form the Joint Committee on Justice, Equality, Defence and Women's Rights. The Orders of References of Seanad �ireann similarly ordered that a Select Committee consisting of five members of that house should be appointed to be joined with the select committee of D�il �ireann to form the Joint Committee on Justice, Equality, Defence and Women's Rights (hereafter "the Joint Committee.")

16

Article 15.10 of the Constitution clearly and emphatically recognises the right, and indeed the duty of each House of the Oireachtas to make its own Rules and Standing Orders and it has never been in issue at any stage in these proceedings that the Joint Committee was lawfully established in accordance with those procedures.

17

In order to place properly in context the subsequent purported establishment of the Committee and the circumstances in which the present proceedings were initiated and determined in the High Court, I must refer in more detail to the events that occurred at Abbeylara and their immediate aftermath, without...

To continue reading

Request your trial
121 cases
  • Denis O'Brien v Mr Justice Michael Moriarty (No. 3)
    • Ireland
    • High Court
    • 21 December 2005
    ...OF INQUIRY CP 22-2003 RSC O.36 r 41 MAGUIRE & ORS v ARDAGH & ORS (OIREACHTAS JOINT COMMITTEE ON JUSTICE) [ABBEYLARA CASE] 2002 1 IR 385 KIELY v MIN FOR SOCIAL WELFARE 1977 IR 267 O'CALLAGHAN v MAHON & ORS (PLANNING TRIBUNAL) UNREP SUPREME 9.03.2005 GEORGOPOLOUS v BEAUMONT HOSP......
  • Curtin v Dáil Éireann
    • Ireland
    • Supreme Court
    • 9 March 2006
    ...ART 50 MELLING v MACMATHGHAMHNA 1962 IR 1 MAGUIRE & ORS v ARDAGH & ORS (OIREACHTAS JOINT COMMITTEE ON JUSTICE) [ABBEYLARA CASE] 2002 1 IR 385 MOONEY v AN POST 1998 4 IR 288 1994 ELR 103 NIXON v UNITED STATES 1993 506 US 224 1993 122 LED 3DL 1993 113 SCT 732 CONSTITUTION ART 15.10 ......
  • Mullally v The Labour Court
    • Ireland
    • Court of Appeal
    • 20 October 2016
    ...the legal rights of individual have been affected. The present case is nevertheless wholly different to cases such as Maguire v. Ardagh [2002] 1 I.R. 385 or de Burca v. Wicklow County Council [2009] IEHC 54. In marked contrast to those cases there is no attempt in the present case to adjudi......
  • O'Brien v Clerk of Dáil Éireann
    • Ireland
    • High Court
    • 31 March 2017
    ...of Article 15, s.10 of the Constitution only. Also, having regard to authorities such as: Re Haughey [1971] I.R. 217; Maguire v. Ardagh [2002] 1 I.R. 385; Callely v. Moylan [2014] 4 I.R. 112; and Kerins v. McGuinness and Ors, [2017] IEHC 34 (Kelly P., Noonan and Kennedy JJ.) do the proceed......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
4 books & journal articles
  • The Case for an Originalist Approach to Constitutional Interpretation in Ireland
    • Ireland
    • Trinity College Law Review Nbr. XIII-2010, January 2010
    • 1 January 2010
    ...at 638. See eg Re Article 26 and the Offences Against the State (Amendment) Bill, 1940 [1940] IR 470, at 478. See also Maguire v Ardagh [2002] 1 IR 385, at 504, per Keane CJ 21 Oran Doyle, Constitutional Law: Text, Cases, and Materials (Clarus Press, 2008), at 467. 22 This is the reason for......
  • Parliamentary Inquiries: The Context of the Joint Oireachtas Committee's Proposals
    • Ireland
    • Cork Online Law Review Nbr. 10-2011, January 2011
    • 1 January 2011
    ...Press London 1958); D O‘Sullivan The Irish Free State and its Senate (Faber and Faber London 1940). 5Maguire and Ors v Ardagh and Ors [2002] 1 IR 385. [2011] COLR As we shall see in Part B, there are a number of different forms of inquiry, for example: the C&AG—Public Accounts Committee......
  • Inquiring, Recording and Reporting': Can the Banking Inquiry Deliver Practical Reforms of Oireachtas Oversight of Government?
    • Ireland
    • Cork Online Law Review Nbr. 14-2015, January 2015
    • 1 January 2015
    ...Act 2013 seeks to better facilitate committee inquiries within the legal context set out by the Supreme Court in Maguire v Ardagh [2002] 1 IR 385 which had concluded that the powers of the Oireachtas to engage in inquiries were limited to the activities of Government departments. That Supre......
  • Political questions' and judicial review in ireland
    • Ireland
    • Irish Judicial Studies Journal Nbr. 2-8, July 2008
    • 1 July 2008
    ...85, at para 50, [2006] 2 I.R. 321 at 367. 48[2005] I.E.S.C. 85, at para. 48; [2006] 2 I.R. 321, at 366. 49 [2001] I.E.H.C. 133; [2002] I.E.S.C. 21; [2002] 1 I.R. 385. Judicial Studies Institute Journal [2008:2 132 and/or livelihoods”.50 The High Court and, on appeal, the Supreme Court agree......