Murphy v The Standards in Public Office Commission & Ors (Approved) [2024] IEHC 374 (21 June 2024)

Murphy v The Standards in Public Office Commission & Ors (Approved) [2024] IEHC 374 (21 June 2024)

The Commission failed to adequately explain its decision not to carry out an investigation, particularly regarding how its remit did not extend to the matters complained of and how this conclusion led to its finding under section 23(1C) of the Ethics in Public Office Act 1995, as amended. This lack of clarity breached the statutory and administrative law duty to give reasons.

Citation
[2024] IEHC 374
Parties
Applicant: Paul Murphy; First Respondent: The Standards in Public Office Commission; Second Respondent: Ireland & The Attorney General
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
21 June 2024
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Final Judgment
Outcome
Application granted in part
Legal Topics
Duty to Give Reasons, Statutory Interpretation, Fair Procedures, Public Office Ethics
Administrative Law Constitutional Law Ethics in Public Office Duty to Give Reasons Statutory Interpretation Fair Procedures Public Office Ethics

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 11 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Paul Murphy

Applicant

The Standards in Public Office Commission

First Respondent

Ireland & The Attorney General

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Commission provided adequate reasons for its decision not to carry out an investigation under section 23 of the Ethics in Public Office Act 1995
  2. 2 Whether the Commission erred in law in concluding its remit did not extend to investigating the actions of the Taoiseach
  3. 3 Whether the process breached the applicant's right to fair procedures and natural justice

Ratio Decidendi

The Commission failed to adequately explain its decision not to carry out an investigation, particularly regarding how its remit did not extend to the matters complained of and how this conclusion led to its finding under section 23(1C) of the Ethics in Public Office Act 1995, as amended. This lack of clarity breached the statutory and administrative law duty to give reasons.

Court Disposition

Application granted in part

Orders

  • Order of Certiorari quashing the Commission's decision not to carry out an investigation under section 23 of the Ethics in Public Office Act 1995
  • Matter remitted to the Commission for reconsideration and a properly reasoned decision