The High Court has refused Hazel Lawlor’s judicial review challenge concerning the standard of proof and legal representation before the Tribunal of Inquiry into Certain Planning Matters and Payments. Mr Justice Roderick Murphy delivered the judgment on 31 July 2008.
Lawlor sought a declaration that the Tribunal could not make findings of serious misconduct against her late husband, Liam Lawlor, unless the evidence met the criminal standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt. The judge refused that relief. He concluded that no single standard of proof is prescribed for tribunals of inquiry. A tribunal may exercise discretion in its fact-finding, but it is not conducting a criminal trial or imposing punishment. The court did not set a different standard for the Tribunal or decide the truth of any allegation against Liam Lawlor.
The judgment noted that the Tribunal’s findings could have serious consequences for reputations, while lacking binding legal effect. It also recorded that the Tribunal had made no findings against Liam Lawlor at the time of the application. The court said leave had not been granted for some arguments concerning the applicant’s standing to defend her late husband’s reputation, and treated those matters as outside the application before it.
Lawlor also sought orders requiring financial arrangements for effective legal representation in the Tribunal hearings, including an injunction to stop public hearings until assistance was provided. The judge found no basis for advance funding. He followed earlier High Court decisions that the statutory power to award costs depended on the Tribunal’s findings and did not permit costs to be guaranteed before those findings. The court also rejected the claim that the Tribunal had an inherent power to provide such advance funding. It noted that the State and Minister were not parties to the proceedings and that no evidence had been given about Lawlor’s financial means.
The court further held that the judicial review had not been brought promptly. It said the issues could have been raised during Liam Lawlor’s lifetime and that the delay had not been satisfactorily explained. The judgment therefore refused the reliefs sought on both the proof-standard and legal-representation issues. It did not halt the Tribunal hearings or determine any allegation being investigated by the Tribunal.