Murphy v an Taoiseach and Others

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: Barniville P.,Phelan J.,Bradley J.
• Judgment Date: 19 December 2025
• Neutral Citation: [2025] IEHC 730
• Court: High Court
• Docket Number: Record No. 2025 512 P

Between/

Paul Murphy

Plaintiff

and

An Taoiseach, Government of Ireland Ireland and The Attorney General

Defendants

[2025] IEHC 730

Barniville P.

Phelan J.

Bradley J.

Record No. 2025 512 P

THE HIGH COURT

AN ARD-CHÚIRT

JUDGMENT of the Court delivered this 19 ^th day of December 2025

CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION	4
2. SUMMARY OF DEPUTY MURPHY'S CLAIMS AND THE DEFENDANTS' RESPONSE	5
(A) Preliminary: summary of Deputy Murphy's claims	5
(B) Summary of the Defendants' Response	9
3. SEPARATE JUDGMENT	10
4. THE PROCEEDINGS	10
5. THE EVIDENCE	11
(A) Evidence of Paul Murphy	11
(B) Evidence of Shane Ross	14
(i) 2016	16
(ii) 2017	18
(iii) 2025	19
(iii) Concurrent Delegation from Members of the Government to Ministers of State	21
(iv) Cabinet Handbook	21
(v) Seniority	21
(vi) Government meetings: record of attendance	22
(vii) Incorporeal meeting	25
(viii) Decisions at meetings of the Government are based on Memoranda	25
(C) Evidence of Finian McGrath	28
(i) Ruling on Finian McGrath's evidence	28
(ii) Government formation negotiations	29
(iii) Appointment as Minister of State	29
(iv) UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with a Disability	30
(v) Difference between supporting and being part of Government	30
(vi) Attendance at meetings of the Government	30
(vii) Consensus of the 15 members of the Government	31
(viii) Incorporeal meeting	31
(ix) Inscription on copy of the Constitution	31
(x) Response to Mr. Callinan's witness statement	32
(xi) Memorandum to Government — Example 1	32
(xii) Memorandum to Government — Example 2	32
(xiii) Memorandum to Government — Example 3	33
(xiv) Memorandum to Government — Example 4	33
(xv) Political influence vs legal influence	33
(D) Evidence of Professor Diarmaid Ferriter	34
(E) Evidence of John Callinan	38
(i) Memorandum/Memoranda	39
(ii) eCabinet	40
(iii) Meetings of the Government	41
(iv) Attendance record at meetings of the Government	44
(v) Seating arrangement at a meeting of the Government	44
(vi) Consensual approach	44
(vii) Cabinet Committees	45
(viii) Documents	46
(F) Evidence of Professor Eunan O'Halpin	47
(G) Evidence of Professor Eoin O'Malley	50
(H) Evidence of Professor Andrew Blick	51
6. THE LEGAL FRAMEWORK	52
(A) General	52
(B) Constitutional Framework	53
(C) Statutory Framework	56
7. FINDINGS OF FACT	57
(A) General	57
(B) Government Formation	57
(C) Speech in the Dáil	58
(D) Dáil Approval and Appointment at Áras an Uachtaráin	59
(E) Attendance at and Participation in Government Meetings	61
(F) Cabinet Committees	67
(G) Consensus Integral to Government Decision-Making	67
(H) Budgetary Process	69
(I) Representative of the Government	70
(J) Differences between Ministers of Government and Ministers of State	70
8. ANALYSIS AND DECISION	73
(A) General Observations	73
(B) Justiciability and Clear Disregard	74
(C) The Approach to Interpretation	76
(D) O'Donovan and equality of participation in elections (and referenda)	77
(E) No Infringement of Article 28	80
(F) Accountability to Dáil Éireann and Collective Responsibility	84
(i) The political accountability of the Government	84
(ii) Collective: speaking with one voice and the principle of unanimity	86
(iii) Collective responsibility at a functional level	88
(G) Cabinet Confidentiality	90
(H) Challenge to s. 3A of 1998 Act	92
9. SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS	92
APPEARANCES	95

1. INTRODUCTION

1 This is the judgment of the Court (Barniville P., Siobhán Phelan J. and Bradley J.) in these plenary proceedings which have been brought by Deputy Paul Murphy, a member of Dáil Éireann for the Dublin South-West constituency. In his proceedings, Deputy Murphy contends that the practice of allowing certain Ministers of State, known colloquially as “Super Junior Ministers”, to regularly attend and participate in meetings of the Government breaches a number of fundamental provisions of the Constitution, specifically, Articles 5, 6, 13.2, 28.1, 28.4.1°, 28.4.2°, and 28.4.3° (28.4.4°, while not pleaded, was referred to in oral argument).

2 That practice is also the subject of a separate challenge in judicial review proceedings which have been brought by another member of Dáil Éireann, Deputy Patrick Daly, on somewhat similar (but not identical) grounds. The evidence adduced by Deputy Murphy in support of his claims in these proceedings is different to the evidence relied on by Deputy Daly in support of his claims and the legal issues raised are somewhat different to those raised in Deputy Daly's proceedings and, consequently, so too is the focus of the legal submissions which have been made by the parties.

3 Deputy Daly's proceedings and these proceedings were heard sequentially by the Court between 7 ^th and 11 ^th July 2025. We are grateful to the parties in the two cases for facilitating the expeditious and efficient hearing of the cases during that week. The judgment of the Court in Deputy Daly's case is also being delivered today (and bears the neutral citation [2025] IEHC 729). For convenience, the proceedings brought by Deputy Daly will be referred to in this judgment as the “ Daly proceedings”.

4 Although we reach the same ultimate conclusions in the two cases, the evidence adduced and the submissions made in each case were not identical and, as a consequence, the treatment of the evidence and the analysis of the submissions are dealt with somewhat differently in the two judgments. For completeness, it is necessary that both judgments should be read together.

5 For the reasons set out in detail in this judgment summarised at paragraphs 446–460 below, we are satisfied that Deputy Murphy's claims in these proceedings must fail and that his action must be dismissed in its entirety.

2. SUMMARY OF DEPUTY MURPHY'S CLAIMS AND THE DEFENDANTS' RESPONSE

(A) Preliminary: summary of Deputy Murphy's claims

6 In these proceedings, Deputy Murphy contends that the regular (or ongoing) attendance and participation by a number of Ministers of State at meetings of the current Government is not in compliance with the Constitution.

7 While Deputy Daly, in his similar challenge brought by way of judicial review, focused solely on the composition of the current 35 ^th Government, Deputy Murphy's challenge objects not only to the composition of the current 35 ^th Government in 2025 but supports his objection by reference to the composition and functioning of the 30 ^th and 31 ^st Governments, respectively in 2016 and 2017.

8 The references to meetings of the Government in this judgment are synonymous with the terms “meetings of the Cabinet” or simply “the Cabinet”, and such other cognate phrases, which were referred to interchangeably by the witnesses and the legal teams for both parties during the hearing before us. Also, the references to “Super Juniors”, or “Super Junior Ministers” or “relevant Ministers of State” are synonymous with Ministers of State regularly and/or continuously attending and participating in meetings of the Government or attending Cabinet meetings on an ongoing basis in 2016, 2017 and 2025. Accordingly, in this judgment, we use the terms “Super Junior Ministers” and “relevant Ministers of State” interchangeably.

9 In these proceedings, Deputy Murphy questions the level of participation of Super Junior Ministers and in so doing he relies, principally, on the evidence of former Dáil deputy and Minister of State, Finian McGrath, who attended meetings of the Government for four years from 2016 to 2020, and also former Dáil deputy and member/Minister of Government, Shane Ross, who was in the same Government for four years. Deputy Murphy also relies on the expert evidence of Professor Diarmaid Ferriter (Professor of Modern Irish History at University College Dublin).

10 In summary, both former deputies contend that the relevant Ministers of State were effectively treated in the same way as the 14 members/Ministers of the Government, who were appointed by the President on the nomination of the Taoiseach and whose appointments were approved by Dáil Éireann, and that this offends the Constitution.

11 The claim advanced by Deputy Murphy (at paragraphs 9 to 12 of his Statement of Claim) is that such Ministers of State are treated in all respects as though they were members of the Government. He identifies the Ministers of State at paragraph (14) of his Statement of Claim as Deputy Hildegarde Naughton (Minister of State attending Cabinet with responsibility for Disability), Deputy Noel Grealish (Minister of State attending Cabinet with responsibility for Food Promotion, New Markets, Research and Development) and Deputy Seán Canney (Minister of State attending Cabinet with responsibility for International and Rural Transport, Logistics, Rail and Ports).

12 After the hearing of Deputy Murphy's action (and the related Daly proceedings) and before delivery of this judgment, on Wednesday 19 ^th November 2025 the Taoiseach announced a number of ministerial changes for the information of the Dáil.

13 Dáil Éireann approved his nomination of Deputy Hildegarde Naughton to be a member of the Government and the President appointed her on 18 ^th November 2025. The Taoiseach assigned...