White v Morris
| Jurisdiction | Ireland |
| Judge | Finnegan J. |
| Judgment Date | 21 March 2007 |
| Neutral Citation | [2007] IEHC 107 |
| Docket Number | [2005 No. 1249 JR],No. 1156JR/2006 |
| Court | High Court |
| Date | 21 March 2007 |
[2007] IEHC 107
THE HIGH COURT
BETWEEN
and
TRIBUNALS OF INQUIRY (EVIDENCE) ACT 1921 S1
TRIBUNALS OF INQUIRY (EVIDENCE) (AMDT) ACT 1997 S4
TRIBUNALS OF INQUIRY (EVIDENCE) (AMDT) ACT 2002 S2
TRIBUNALS OF INQUIRY (EVIDENCE) ACT 1921 S2(a)
CONSTITUTION ART 34
GOODMAN INTERNATIONAL v HAMILTON 1992 2 IR 542
MEENAN v CMSN TO INQUIRE INTO CHILD ABUSE 2003 3 IR 283 2003/35/8305
CMSN TO INQUIRE INTO CHILD ABUSE ACT 2000
KENNEDY & ORS v IRELAND & AG 1987 IR 587 1988 ILRM 472 1988/2/367
BARRY v MEDICAL COUNCIL & ANOR 1998 3 IR 387 1998/2/346
TRIBUNAL OF INQUIRY
Public hearing
Judicial review - Application to give evidence in private in order to protect privacy of medical problems refused - Right to privacy - Balance of public interests - Goodman International v Hamilton [1992] 2 IR 557 and Meenan v Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse [2003] 3 IR 283 applied - Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Acts 1921-2002 - European Convention on Human Rights, art 8 - Relief refused (2006/1156JR - Finnegan J - 21/3/2007) [2007] IEHC 107White v Morris
The applicant had been due to attend at the respondent Tribunal to give evidence and sought to review the decision of the Tribunal to hear evidence in relation to the applicants medical condition in public. The applicant asserted that inter alia his right to privacy and bodily integrity would be violated by the decision.
Held by Finnegan J. that the schema established for the operation of Tribunals provided for evidence to be heard otherwise than in public in particular circumstances where it was expedient in the public interest. The applicant was not entitled to the reliefs sought.
Reporter: E.F.
I propose referring to the respondent herein as the Tribunal hereafter. The Tribunal was established by Resolution passed by Dáil Éireann and Seanad Éireann on the 28th March 2002 and by Instrument made by the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform on the 24th April 2002. The Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Acts 1921 to 2002 apply to the Tribunal. The Tribunals of Inquiry Act 1921 section 1 provides as follows:-
"1(1) Where it has been resolved (whether before or after the commencement of this Act) by both Houses of Parliament that it is expedient that a Tribunal be established for enquiring into a definite matter described in the Resolution as of urgent public importance…"
The Resolutions of the Dáil and Seanad resolved that it was expedient that a Tribunal be established under the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Acts 1921-2002 to enquire urgently into the definite matters of urgent public importance therein set out relating to complaints concerning some Gardai in the Donegal Division. The applicant here is one of the Gardai against whom complaints have been made.
On the 27th September 2006 the applicant was granted leave to apply by way of an application for judicial review for a number of reliefs. The circumstances underlying the application are that on the 19th September 2006 the Tribunal made a decision to hear evidence in relation to the applicant's medical condition in public. The applicant was due to attend before the Tribunal on the 18th September 2006 for the purposes of giving evidence. On the 11th September 2006 the applicant's solicitor contacted the solicitor to the Tribunal by telephone and informed him that the applicant was undergoing medical treatment and that it was likely that he would not be in a position to give evidence as requested on the 18th September 2006. By letter dated the 12th September 2006 the applicant's solicitor wrote to the solicitor to the Tribunal and informed him that the applicant's consultant psychiatrist, Dr. Lewis O'Carroll, had confirmed that the applicant was medically unfit to attend the Tribunal to give evidence and that it had been arranged for the applicant to be admitted for residential medical care and that a medical report would be furnished to the Tribunal to confirm. The solicitor to the Tribunal responded by letter dated 30th September 2006 to the effect that the applicant would be required to give evidence on the 18th September 2006 notwithstanding his medical condition. Further to the said letter the solicitor to the Tribunal informed the applicant's solicitor that if evidence was to be adduced in respect of an application for an adjournment that evidence would be taken orally, that any written report should be forwarded to the Tribunal by Friday, 15th September 2006 and that the author of such report should be available to give oral evidence. Finally by letter dated 14th September 2006 the applicant's solicitor informed the solicitor to the Tribunal that he could not confirm that Dr. O'Carroll would be available to give evidence on the 18th September 2006 and further that an application would be made to have Dr. O'Carroll's evidence heard in private session"as it would not be helpful that his (the applicant's) present medical condition be disclosed in public".
On the 18th September 2006 the applicant was called to give evidence before the Tribunal. His solicitor appeared and informed the Tribunal that the applicant was not present and advised the Tribunal in relation to the applicant's health. The Tribunal determined that the applicant had an obligation to attend before it and that it was not satisfied that the applicant was medically incapable of attending. It required Dr O'Carroll to attend on the following day to provide the Tribunal with evidence as to the applicant's condition.
The matter was listed for hearing at 2 p.m. on the 19th September 2006. Prior to the hearing Dr O'Carroll had a meeting with counsel for the Tribunal during the course of which he had a telephone conversation with the applicant. The applicant informed him that he did not wish to have matters concerning his health heard in public and that he was concerned at the impact that publication of such matters would have on his family and on his own health. When the matter came on for hearing counsel for the applicant applied to have any evidence in relation to the applicant's medical condition heard in camera on the grounds that intimate details of the applicant's mental health should be heard in private. He relied upon the applicant's constitutional rights to privacy and to bodily integrity. The sole member made a request that members of the media would not publish any...
To continue reading
Request your trial