The Supreme Court has rejected an appeal by members of a Seanad committee and Seanad Éireann over a High Court decision that quashed a report and resolution concerning former senator Ivor Callely’s travel expenses.
In a judgment delivered by Mr Justice William McKechnie on 9 April 2014, the Court held that the statutory inquiry was open to judicial review. It also concluded that the committee’s findings could not stand because Callely had not been given fair procedures. The appeal was rejected; the Court did not make a fresh finding about whether his expenses claims were proper.
The inquiry followed complaints alleging that Callely misrepresented his normal place of residence to claim travel and overnight allowances between August 2007 and March 2010. The committee found that he had misrepresented his residence, acted intentionally and in bad faith, and that the conduct was serious and grave. On 14 July 2010, the Seanad adopted the committee’s report and censured him, suspending him without pay for 20 sitting days. These were the committee’s findings and the Seanad’s action, not findings made in this Supreme Court appeal.
Callely had told the committee that West Cork was his normal place of residence under a definition supplied by Seanad Members’ Services. The judgment records that the committee’s statement of contravention identified the allegation as misrepresentation of his normal residence for the purpose of claiming allowances. The committee later said in its court submissions that it was assessing a “specified act” under the Standards in Public Office Act, rather than deciding whether the residence met the expenses rules. It also argued that the department’s definition was wrong and outside the law.
The Supreme Court rejected the argument that parliamentary privilege prevented review. It held that the investigation and sanctions were created and governed by legislation, rather than Seanad standing orders, and found no constitutional basis for barring the courts from considering Callely’s rights in this case. It also rejected the claim that the political or ethical nature of the statutory test made it beyond judicial review.
On fair procedures, the Court said the committee had not told Callely it might use a different test from the definition Members’ Services had provided, nor given him a timely chance to respond to such a change. The Court noted the respondents’ late concession that his claims fell within that definition. It concluded that, whether the committee applied the definition, substituted another test, or failed to determine the alleged misrepresentation, its finding of a breach could not be justified.
The High Court’s order quashing the report and resolution therefore remained in place. The Supreme Court said it was unnecessary to decide whether the department’s definition was legally valid; that question was left open.