The Supreme Court dismissed an appeal by members of the Tribunal of Inquiry into Certain Planning Matters and Payments and affirmed the High Court order in a judicial review brought by Owen O’Callaghan. Justice Geoghegan delivered a separate judgment on 9 March 2005, agreeing that the appeal should be dismissed while relying on narrower grounds than those addressed by Justice Hardiman.
Justice Geoghegan said the tribunal had to comply with the requirements set out by the Supreme Court in In re Haughey. He concluded that it had not done so in this case.
The judgment noted that tribunals established under the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act 1921 may adopt procedures suited to their work, including separate hearings for different modules and limits on evidence relevant to each module. They are not required to follow courtroom procedures literally in every circumstance. But they remain bound to respect constitutional rights, including the right to have a person’s good name vindicated as far as possible.
Justice Geoghegan said it was essential that documents and other material sought by Mr O’Callaghan be produced to allow effective cross-examination. The judgment described the circumstances as unusual, with serious allegations being made against him at the tribunal without prior notice. It said the tribunal’s understanding of confidentiality was not absolute: where information became essential to cross-examination under the In re Haughey right, the tribunal could not maintain confidentiality by withholding it.
The judge said the tribunal had applied its own policies too rigidly and thereby infringed the Constitution. He considered that sufficient to decide the appeal, leaving broader questions about how court evidence rules apply to tribunal proceedings for another case where they were necessary to resolve the dispute.
Justice Geoghegan also said judicial reviews of individual tribunal rulings while hearings are continuing are generally undesirable, and courts should not lightly interfere with tribunals’ latitude to set their own procedures. The Supreme Court’s order in this appeal was to dismiss the appeal and affirm the High Court order; the judgment excerpt does not state the terms of that High Court order.