Harrison v Charleton (Approved) [2020] IECA 168 (22 June 2020)

Harrison v Charleton (Approved) [2020] IECA 168 (22 June 2020)

The Court of Appeal held that no reasonable person, apprised of all the relevant facts, would have a reasonable apprehension of bias arising from the respondent's prior professional association with Chief Superintendent McGinn during the Morris Tribunal. The association was minimal, professional, and did not involve any personal relationship or circumstances capable of influencing the respondent's impartiality in the Disclosures Tribunal. The respondent was not under a duty to disclose the association, and the failure to do so did not undermine the fairness of the proceedings. The appeal was dismissed and the High Court's rejection of the claim of objective bias was affirmed.

Citation
[2020] IECA 168
Parties
Plaintiff/appellant: Keith Harrison; Defendant/respondent: Peter Charleton
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
22 June 2020
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal From High Court
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Objective Bias, Tribunal of Inquiry, Protected Disclosures, Recusal of Decision Maker, Duty of Disclosure
Administrative Law Judicial Review Objective Bias Tribunal of Inquiry Protected Disclosures Recusal of Decision Maker Duty of Disclosure

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Keith Harrison

Plaintiff/appellant

Peter Charleton

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal From High Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the prior professional association between the respondent (as tribunal member) and a key witness (Chief Superintendent McGinn) gave rise to objective bias or a reasonable apprehension of bias in the Disclosures Tribunal's proceedings against the appellant.
  2. 2 Whether the respondent was under a duty to disclose any prior association with the witness.
  3. 3 Whether the failure to disclose or recuse invalidated the tribunal's findings against the appellant.

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal held that no reasonable person, apprised of all the relevant facts, would have a reasonable apprehension of bias arising from the respondent's prior professional association with Chief Superintendent McGinn during the Morris Tribunal. The association was minimal, professional, and did not involve any personal relationship or circumstances capable of influencing the respondent's impartiality in the Disclosures Tribunal. The respondent was not under a duty to disclose the association, and the failure to do so did not undermine the fairness of the proceedings. The appeal was dismissed and the High Court's rejection of the claim of objective bias was affirmed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed.
  • The High Court's order refusing judicial review is affirmed.