O'Callaghan v. Mahon & Ors [2004] IEHC 134 (7 July 2004)

O'Callaghan v. Mahon & Ors [2004] IEHC 134 (7 July 2004)

The Tribunal's refusal to disclose prior statements of the notice party relevant to the current module of the public inquiry constituted a breach of the applicant's constitutional right to fair procedures, as it unreasonably hampered his ability to cross-examine and defend his good name. The public interest in full disclosure at the public inquiry stage supersedes confidentiality assurances given during the private investigative phase, except for counsel's notes made solely for their own purposes.

Citation
[2004] IEHC 134
Parties
Applicant: Owen O'Callaghan; Respondents: Judge Alan Mahon, 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
07 July 2004
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Judgment on Application for Declaration and Certiorari
Outcome
Application granted
Legal Topics
Right to Fair Procedures, Tribunals of Inquiry, Confidentiality of Evidence, Disclosure Obligations, Cross Examination Rights
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Right to Fair Procedures Tribunals of Inquiry Confidentiality of Evidence Disclosure Obligations 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 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Owen O'Callaghan

Applicant

Judge Alan Mahon, Judge Mary Faherty, Judge Gerald Keys (Members of the Tribunal of Inquiry into Certain Planning Matters and Payments)

Respondents

Tom Gilmartin

Notice Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Judgment on Application for Declaration and Certiorari

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Tribunal's refusal to disclose prior statements of the notice party breached the applicant's constitutional right to fair procedures and to vindicate his good name
  2. 2 Whether confidentiality assurances to witnesses can override the right to disclosure in a public inquiry

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal's refusal to disclose prior statements of the notice party relevant to the current module of the public inquiry constituted a breach of the applicant's constitutional right to fair procedures, as it unreasonably hampered his ability to cross-examine and defend his good name. The public interest in full disclosure at the public inquiry stage supersedes confidentiality assurances given during the private investigative phase, except for counsel's notes made solely for their own purposes.

Court Disposition

Application granted

Orders

  • Declaration that the Tribunal's refusal to disclose relevant prior statements of the notice party breached the applicant's right to fair procedures, confined to documents relevant to the current module and excluding counsel's notes made solely for their own purposes.
  • Order of certiorari quashing the Tribunal's decision refusing disclosure.