The High Court has quashed a 2005 report by Wicklow County Council officials that found councillor Fachtna Whittle had not breached local government ethics rules when he proposed rezoning land at Ballylusk Quarry.
Mr Justice Hedigan ruled that the investigators had made a serious error of law by failing to properly consider whether Mr Whittle’s professional connection to the quarry owners amounted to a beneficial interest that had to be disclosed. He remitted the complaint to the Ethics Registrar for further consideration under the Local Government Act 2001.
The ruling did not determine that Mr Whittle had breached the Act. The judge said the court was not acting as an appeal body or substituting its view for that of the investigators. He found, however, that the conduct described in the council report as “unwise” and “an error of judgment” could have created a reasonable public apprehension that Mr Whittle was not acting solely in the public interest, if the investigators had directed themselves correctly.
At a July 2004 meeting on Wicklow County Council’s development plan, Mr Whittle proposed rezoning land at Ballylusk, Ashford, to allow an existing quarry to expand and a small enterprise park to be developed. The amendment was later deleted from the plan. The judgment records that Mr Whittle disclosed that he was a solicitor practising locally. The complainant, then councillor Deirdre de Burca, alleged that his firm acted for the landowner and that he had personally acted in court proceedings concerning the quarry’s planning status. Mr Whittle’s submissions said he knew of those proceedings only in a general way and that the rezoning proposal would not affect them.
The council report, issued on 15 June 2005, found no evidence that Mr Whittle had a beneficial or pecuniary interest in the motion’s outcome. Ms de Burca sought to have the report quashed and declarations about the disclosure rules.
The judge rejected objections that the report could not be reviewed by the court and that Ms de Burca lacked sufficient interest. He said the report’s criticism of her had implications for her reputation and that, as the complainant who initiated the investigation, she had a sufficient connection to challenge it. Her decision not to attend the council’s investigation meeting did not remove that standing.
However, her application for declaratory relief was made after the three-month time limit, and she provided no explanation for the delay. The court refused those declarations. The separate challenge to the report was brought within the six-month limit, and the judge found no prejudice to the other parties that would defeat it.