The High Court has quashed a decision by the Irish Sports Council to appoint an investigator to examine allegations about one of its members, ruling that the Council had no statutory power to investigate its own members.
Mr Justice Michael Peart said the Council’s decision on 16 April 2013 to appoint former Director of Corporate Enforcement Paul Appelbe to investigate the complaints was ultra vires. The court declared the decision invalid and ordered that it be quashed. It left any further orders for later submissions.
The case arose after the Football Association of Ireland (FAI) complained to the Council chairman about emails concerning FAI funding and other matters. The FAI alleged that the applicant had tried to influence funding decisions despite his declared past connection with the association, continued to discuss FAI funding with Council members, and interfered improperly in the funding process. It also raised concerns about other emails found on the FAI’s server. These were allegations in the FAI’s letter, not findings by the court about the applicant’s conduct.
The applicant, who had declared his former FAI interest and said he withdrew from Council agenda items concerning FAI funding, challenged the Council’s authority to launch the inquiry. He also argued that the process was unfair because he and Council members were not given the underlying emails before the decision. The Council said an investigation was needed to examine the allegations and help it meet its statutory and governance obligations.
The judge found that the legislation gave the Council specific powers concerning disclosure of interests by staff, consultants and advisers, but did not provide for an investigation of a Council member. He noted that the Minister had the statutory power to remove a member for stated misbehaviour. The Act did not give the Council a role in that process, and the possibility that the Council could report concerns to the Minister did not create an implied power to investigate.
The judge did not formally decide the applicant’s fair-procedures challenge because the lack of statutory authority was enough to dispose of the case. He nevertheless said the process had lacked fairness. In his view, the applicant should have been told precisely what was alleged, given copies of the emails, and offered an opportunity to respond before the Council decided to appoint an investigator. The judgment does not determine whether the allegations were true or whether the applicant breached any rules.