The Supreme Court rejected an appeal ground arguing that courts had no jurisdiction to review the legality or constitutionality of a Seanad committee’s disciplinary process against Ivor Callely. The judgment delivered by Mr Justice Murray on 9 April 2014 addressed judicial review and fair procedures; the supplied text does not state the Court’s final orders in the appeal as a whole.
Callely was the applicant/respondent. The appellants were Pat Moylan, Dan Boyle, Frances Fitzgerald, Camillus Glynn, Denis O’Donovan, Joe O’Toole and Alex White, identified in the judgment as members of the Select Committee on Members’ Interests of Seanad Éireann, along with that committee and Seanad Éireann.
The appellants’ primary submission was that a committee exercising disciplinary powers could decide for itself whether its process and decisions were lawful, without court review. Murray rejected that position. He said the Houses of the Oireachtas exercise powers under the Constitution and must do so in accordance with it. Judicial review of whether constitutional requirements were observed, he said, does not prevent the Houses from exercising their powers.
The judgment referred to the Ethics in Public Office Act 1995, which requires the Seanad to establish a committee on members’ interests. Murray said the courts must be able to review how powers under the Act were exercised, including whether the process followed constitutional justice. He also rejected the argument that Article 15.10 of the Constitution gave the committee immunity from such review.
The judgment discusses disciplinary action that could involve suspension or a fine, but the supplied extract does not identify a specific penalty imposed on Callely. It also does not set out the underlying committee findings or the full procedural history. Murray said the appellants’ first ground of appeal should fail. He separately agreed with the other judges who addressed the fair-procedures ground that it should be disallowed, referring to the reasons in Mr Justice McKechnie’s judgment. The extract does not state the complete disposition of the appeal.