The Court of Appeal allowed a declaration and a costs order in a dispute over relief sought by Alan Shatter, but refused three further orders against Sean Guerin, author of a report containing criticism of Shatter.
In a judgment delivered on 2 March 2017, the President said the court had previously found that Guerin breached natural justice in reaching conclusions and making statements about Shatter in a report submitted to the Taoiseach in May 2014. The court described the criticisms as seriously damaging. The judgment on relief followed the court’s earlier judgments, delivered on 10 November 2016.
Shatter sought five orders. The first was a declaration that the conclusions critical of him in Guerin’s report were reached in breach of fair procedures and constitutional and natural justice. The court allowed that order. It also allowed an order concerning costs in the High Court and Court of Appeal.
The disputed requests were to quash the conclusions, require Guerin to give the Taoiseach a copy of the court order, and require Guerin to amend the report by deleting the impugned conclusions and deliver the amended report to the Taoiseach. The President said those orders should not be made against Guerin because he was functus officio: he had submitted the report and no longer had its possession or control.
The judgment said the report was under the ownership and control of the Government. It noted that most of the material at issue was in Chapter 19, with one paragraph in Chapter 20, and that the remaining report could still make sense if the material were removed or redacted with a note explaining the change.
The President considered it unjust and unreasonable for the criticism to remain on the public record unaffected by the court’s decision. However, the judgment said the consequences were now a matter between Shatter and the State. It expressed the view that the State had a constitutional obligation to vindicate Shatter’s rights, but left the method to be negotiated and agreed. If agreement failed, the judgment said a return to the courts was available. The Court of Appeal could not hear a fresh dispute involving a new party or parties.