Kerins v Dail Eireann & Ors (Approved)

Factual and Procedural Background

This judicial review concerns an application by the Plaintiff against the Defendant and the Attorney General relating to proceedings of the Public Accounts Committee (the Committee) of the Defendant. The Plaintiff seeks damages for alleged misfeasance in public office by members of the Defendant acting in the Committee. The Plaintiff claims that members of the Committee engaged in a sustained attack on her character in a public session held on 27 February 2014 and in subsequent sessions, causing her health damage and loss. She alleges deliberate abuse of powers by Committee members. The Plaintiff also seeks discovery of documents held by the Defendant related to the Committee, including records of private sessions and legal advice, which she claims are relevant and necessary for the fair disposal of her action. The Defendant contests the application for discovery on grounds of constitutional immunity and parliamentary privilege.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the court has jurisdiction to entertain the Plaintiff's application for discovery of documents held by the Defendant in relation to parliamentary speech and debate within the Committee.
2. Whether the constitutional protections under Articles 15.10, 15.12, and 15.13 of the Constitution preclude judicial scrutiny of the speech and debate of members of the Defendant in Committee proceedings, including related documents.
3. Whether the Plaintiff's claim for damages for misfeasance in public office based on Committee proceedings is justiciable given the constitutional immunities afforded to members of the Defendant.
4. Whether the standing orders adopted by the Defendant under Article 15.10 of the Constitution bar the court from ordering disclosure of official documents of the Defendant or Committee.

Arguments of the Parties

Applicant's Arguments

• The Plaintiff alleges that members of the Committee acted outside their remit and deliberately abused their powers to damage her reputation and cause loss.
• She seeks discovery of documents including transcripts, recordings, legal advice, and other materials from private and public Committee sessions, asserting these are relevant and necessary for a fair trial.
• The Plaintiff claims that the Committee's attempt to compel further attendance was an abuse of power.

Respondent's Arguments

• The Defendant asserts that the documents sought are protected official documents and private papers under Article 15.10 of the Constitution and standing orders adopted by the Defendant, which preclude disclosure without consent.
• The Defendant contends that members of the Committee enjoy absolute immunity under Articles 15.12 and 15.13 of the Constitution for speech and debate in the Houses and their committees, including related documents.
• Section 92 of the Houses of the Oireachtas (Inquiries, Privileges and Procedures) Act 2013 supplements these protections, conferring immunities and privileges regarding committee proceedings and documentation.
• The Defendant submits that the court lacks jurisdiction to order discovery of documents intimately connected with protected parliamentary speech and debate.
• Standing Order 153(4) prohibits the Clerk of the Defendant from allowing access to or disclosure of official documents except as authorized under specified provisions.
• The Defendant argues that the Plaintiff’s claim is not maintainable as it calls for judicial judgment on protected speech and debate, which is non-justiciable.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court began by emphasizing the constitutional provisions—Articles 15.10, 15.12, and 15.13—which collectively protect freedom of speech and debate within the Houses of the Defendant and extend to committee proceedings and related documents. The Court held that members of the Committee enjoy absolute immunity from suit in respect of utterances made in public and private sessions, regardless of malice or abuse of power. This immunity extends not only to speech but also to documents intimately connected with such speech, including transcripts, recordings, legal advice, and preparatory materials.

The Court recognized that the Plaintiff’s claim for damages based on misfeasance in public office necessarily calls for judicial evaluation of protected parliamentary speech and debate, which is constitutionally non-justiciable. The Court noted that judicial intervention in such matters is only permissible in exceptional circumstances where the Houses abandon their constitutional duty to protect citizens’ rights, which was not established here.

The Court further observed that the standing orders adopted by the Defendant under Article 15.10 of the Constitution expressly protect official documents and private papers of members, restricting disclosure absent specific authorization. The Plaintiff’s application for discovery does not fall within any exception to these standing orders.

The Court concluded that ordering discovery of the requested documents would constitute a collateral attack on constitutional protections and thus is impermissible. The Court also held that it cannot receive evidence relating to protected utterances or Committee proceedings for adjudication of the Plaintiff’s claim. Consequently, the Plaintiff’s claim for damages is not maintainable in this forum.

The Court acknowledged that if an appellate court disagrees with this determination, the Defendant’s application for discovery may be revisited. The Court noted the Supreme Court’s prior finding that the Committee acted unlawfully in exceeding its remit but refrained from making findings that would infringe constitutional immunities.

Holding and Implications

The Court DISMISSED the Plaintiff’s application for discovery of documents held by the Defendant in relation to the Committee proceedings.

The Plaintiff’s claim for damages for misfeasance in public office based on speech and debate in the Committee is held to be non-justiciable due to constitutional protections. The Court emphasized that members of the Defendant enjoy absolute immunity for utterances in the Houses and their committees, and that the Defendant’s standing orders preclude disclosure of official documents without consent.

The direct effect of this decision is to bar the Plaintiff from obtaining discovery of the requested documents and to prevent judicial scrutiny of the protected parliamentary speech and debate at issue. No new precedent altering the constitutional scope of parliamentary privilege or court jurisdiction was established. The decision reinforces the exclusive authority of the Houses over their internal proceedings and members’ speech, limiting courts’ intervention to exceptional circumstances not present here.