The Supreme Court has dismissed Angela Kerins’ appeal against a High Court decision that her damages claim over Public Accounts Committee (PAC) hearings could not proceed. The Court held that the claim, as framed, would make members of the Oireachtas amenable to a court for statements made during committee proceedings, contrary to Article 15 of the Constitution. It said discovery could not be ordered in support of a claim that could not be maintained.
The appeal concerned the next stage of long-running proceedings arising from PAC hearings on 27 February and 10 April 2014. Kerins, then chief executive of the Rehab Group, had attended the February hearing voluntarily. The Supreme Court had previously declared that the PAC acted unlawfully by holding a public hearing significantly outside its terms of reference and the terms of the invitation issued to her. That declaration related to the 27 February session; it did not determine whether she was entitled to damages.
Kerins sought damages including for alleged breaches of constitutional rights, personal injury and harm to her reputation. She also renewed an application for discovery of documents relating to the PAC’s examination, its preparations and communications. The respondents argued that the documents were protected by constitutional or other privileges. The High Court dismissed the application after finding that the damages claim would require judgment on members’ speech and debate.
Delivering the Supreme Court’s judgment on 18 June 2024, Chief Justice O’Donnell said the substance of the damages claim was that Kerins suffered harm to her reputation and health because of what was said at PAC sessions. The claim’s wording and its pursuit against Dáil Éireann rather than individual committee members did not change that substance, he said. A court could not indirectly impose liability for utterances where the Constitution protected members from being made amenable to a court for them.
The Court rejected the argument that its earlier decision allowing scrutiny of the PAC’s conduct to determine whether it acted within its jurisdiction established a general right to claim damages. The earlier declaration was limited and did not decide that damages were available. The Court also held that the facts did not meet the threshold for the possible exceptional intervention described in Callely v. Moylan.
The Court stressed that its conclusion concerned this claim as formulated and did not mean Kerins lacked constitutional rights when dealing with the PAC. It noted the Oireachtas’ duty to protect and vindicate personal rights, alongside its procedures for complaints about statements in Dáil and committee proceedings. It left open whether a damages claim could proceed in other circumstances. The appeal was dismissed.