O'Callaghan -v- The Hon. Mr. Justice Mahon & ors [2005] IESC 9 (09 March 2005)

O'Callaghan -v- The Hon. Mr. Justice Mahon & ors [2005] IESC 9 (09 March 2005)

The Supreme Court held that the applicant was entitled to access prior statements made by Tom Gilmartin to the tribunal relevant to the current module for the purpose of cross-examination, as this was necessary to vindicate his right to fair procedures and natural justice. The tribunal’s policy of confidentiality could not override this right where grave and novel allegations were made without prior notice, and where the credibility of the witness was central. The refusal to disclose the statements was a failure to observe and protect the applicant’s constitutional rights.

Citation
[2005] IESC 9
Parties
Applicant/respondent: Owen O’Callaghan; Respondents/appellants: Judge Alan Mahon S.C., Judge Mary Faherty, Judge Gerald Keys, Members of the Tribunal of Inquiry into Certain Planning Matters and Payments; Notice Party: Tom Gilmartin
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
09 March 2005
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Supreme Court Judgment on Appeal From High Court
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; High Court order affirmed
Legal Topics
Right to Fair Procedures, Disclosure of Documents, Confidentiality in Tribunals, Cross Examination Rights
Administrative Law Constitutional Law Tribunal Procedure Right to Fair Procedures Disclosure of Documents Confidentiality in Tribunals Cross Examination Rights

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 3 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Owen O’Callaghan

Applicant/respondent

Judge Alan Mahon S.C., Judge Mary Faherty, Judge Gerald Keys, Members of the Tribunal of Inquiry into Certain Planning Matters and Payments

Respondents/appellants

Tom Gilmartin

Notice Party

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Supreme Court Judgment on Appeal From High Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the refusal by the tribunal to provide the applicant with access to prior statements made by a witness (Tom Gilmartin) violated the applicant’s right to fair procedures and natural and constitutional justice.
  2. 2 Whether the tribunal’s policy of confidentiality regarding pre-hearing witness statements can override the right to cross-examine and test credibility.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court held that the applicant was entitled to access prior statements made by Tom Gilmartin to the tribunal relevant to the current module for the purpose of cross-examination, as this was necessary to vindicate his right to fair procedures and natural justice. The tribunal’s policy of confidentiality could not override this right where grave and novel allegations were made without prior notice, and where the credibility of the witness was central. The refusal to disclose the statements was a failure to observe and protect the applicant’s constitutional rights.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; High Court order affirmed

Orders

  • Declaration that the refusal to permit access to relevant documents amounted to a failure to observe and protect the applicant’s rights to fair procedure and natural and constitutional justice.
  • Order quashing the tribunal’s decision of 24 March 2004 refusing disclosure of the documents.