Kerins v McGuinness & Ors [2019] IESC 11 (27 February 2019)

Kerins v McGuinness & Ors [2019] IESC 11 (27 February 2019)

The Supreme Court held that, while the Constitution and statute confer significant privilege and immunity on utterances and actions within parliamentary committees, there is not an absolute barrier to judicial review in all circumstances. The courts retain a limited jurisdiction to intervene in cases of clear and egregious breach of constitutional rights where no effective remedy exists within the Oireachtas. However, on the facts, the actions of the PAC, though damaging to Ms. Kerins, did not reach the threshold for such exceptional intervention, and the claim must fail.

Citation
[2019] IESC 11
Parties
Applicant/appellant: Angela Kerins; Respondent: Deputy John McGuinness; Respondent: Deputy Mary Lou McDonald; Respondent: Deputy Shane Ross; Respondent: Deputy Áine Collins; Respondent: Deputy Paul J. Connaughton; Respondent: Deputy John Deasy; Respondent: Deputy Robert Dowds; Respondent: Deputy Sean Fleming; Respondent: Deputy Simon Harris; Respondent: Deputy Eoghan Murphy; Respondent: Deputy Gerald Nash; Respondent: Deputy Derek Nolan; Respondent: Deputy Kieran O'Donnell; Respondent: The Clerk of Dail Éireann; Respondent: The Clerk of the Public Accounts Committee; Respondent: Ireland; Respondent: The Attorney General
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
27 February 2019
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Supreme Court Appeal From Divisional High Court
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Separation of Powers, Parliamentary Privilege, Justiciability, Remedies for Unlawful Acts by Parliamentary Committees, Rights of Witnesses Before Parliamentary Committees
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Parliamentary Law Separation of Powers Parliamentary Privilege Justiciability Remedies for Unlawful Acts by Parliamentary Committees Rights of Witnesses Before Parliamentary Committees

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 4 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Angela Kerins

Applicant/appellant

Deputy John McGuinness

Respondent

Deputy Mary Lou McDonald

Respondent

Deputy Shane Ross

Respondent

Deputy Áine Collins

Respondent

Deputy Paul J. Connaughton

Respondent

Deputy John Deasy

Respondent

Deputy Robert Dowds

Respondent

Deputy Sean Fleming

Respondent

Deputy Simon Harris

Respondent

Deputy Eoghan Murphy

Respondent

Deputy Gerald Nash

Respondent

Deputy Derek Nolan

Respondent

Deputy Kieran O'Donnell

Respondent

The Clerk of Dail Éireann

Respondent

The Clerk of the Public Accounts Committee

Respondent

Ireland

Respondent

The Attorney General

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Supreme Court Appeal From Divisional High Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the courts have jurisdiction to review the actions of a parliamentary committee (PAC) in respect of treatment of a voluntary witness
  2. 2 Whether constitutional or statutory privilege/immunity bars judicial review of committee proceedings
  3. 3 Whether there is an exception to parliamentary privilege in cases of egregious breach of rights

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court held that, while the Constitution and statute confer significant privilege and immunity on utterances and actions within parliamentary committees, there is not an absolute barrier to judicial review in all circumstances. The courts retain a limited jurisdiction to intervene in cases of clear and egregious breach of constitutional rights where no effective remedy exists within the Oireachtas. However, on the facts, the actions of the PAC, though damaging to Ms. Kerins, did not reach the threshold for such exceptional intervention, and the claim must fail.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • No remedy granted to applicant
  • Costs issues to be determined separately