The High Court has granted four TDs leave to seek judicial review over the Ceann Comhairle’s refusal to allow a motion concerning Dáil money messages to proceed. The court did not decide whether the money-message procedure is being overused or whether the Ceann Comhairle’s decision was unlawful. It also refused interim relief that could have affected the Dáil’s business schedule.
Mr Justice Garrett Simons said the application had been heard urgently and on notice to the Ceann Comhairle because of the possible constitutional issues and the request for interim relief. He stressed that leave is granted at a low threshold: it means the case is arguable, not that the applicants will succeed at a full hearing.
The applicants—Bríd Smith, Richard Boyd Barrett, Gino Kelly and Paul Murphy—are members of Dáil Éireann. They sought to amend Standing Order 179, which governs when bills involving public money require a Government money message under Article 17.2 of the Constitution. Their motion had been scheduled for private members’ time on 6 November 2019. The Ceann Comhairle had refused to allow it onto the Order Paper, citing drafting ambiguities and a concern that part of the motion could permit bills requiring a Government recommendation to pass without one.
The judge found an arguable case that the Government’s understanding of the money-message procedure may be overly broad, and that the Ceann Comhairle’s decision may be justiciable. He noted that the Dáil had voted on 5 November for an order of business that omitted the motion. Whether that vote endorsed the Ceann Comhairle’s ruling, and the merits of the challenge, were matters for a full hearing.
The judge refused an injunction or stay. The scheduled time for the motion had already passed, and he said an interim order could in practice rewrite an Order Paper approved by a majority of the Dáil. He considered that the applicants had not met the higher threshold he applied where interim relief could intrude on another organ of State.
Instead, he directed that the case be listed promptly for directions before Mr Justice Meenan, the judge in charge of the Judicial Review List. The parties were asked to agree a timetable for pleadings, affidavits and written submissions before the action is set down for trial.