The Supreme Court has upheld the established approach to interpreting legislation without relying on ministerial statements or parliamentary debates in proceedings involving Derek Crilly and the Eastern Health Board.
The appeal arose within litigation originally brought by Crilly against T. & J. Farrington Limited and John O’Connor, with a separate issue directed for trial involving the Eastern Health Board, Crilly and F.B.D. Insurance plc.
The principal legal issue concerned section 2 of the Health (Amendment) Act 1986 and the method by which charges imposed by a health board under that legislation were to be calculated.
Mrs Justice McGuinness said she agreed with the conclusions reached by Mrs Justice Denham on that issue. The supplied judgment is an addendum and does not reproduce the detailed calculation method or the underlying facts giving rise to the health board’s claim.
A second issue concerned whether courts should be permitted to consult statements by ministers, or parliamentary debates more generally, when deciding what legislation means.
Mrs Justice McGuinness agreed with the other members of the court that the existing exclusionary rule should remain in place for the purposes of this appeal. She said legislative enactment is a collective process involving the Oireachtas as a whole, and relying on an individual minister’s comments could give a misleading picture of the legislation ultimately enacted.
She also pointed to practical difficulties. Bills can be substantially amended as they pass through both Houses, while searching full parliamentary debates for interpretive guidance could be complex and time-consuming.
The court did not finally rule that parliamentary material could never be considered in some future case. Instead, it concluded that insufficient grounds had been established to abolish or qualify the established rule at that time, and that the ministerial statement relied upon in these proceedings should not have been considered.