The Supreme Court dismissed an appeal by Seán Guerin over judicial review proceedings brought by Alan Shatter, holding that Shatter should have been given an opportunity to respond to criticisms of his handling of complaints made by Sergeant Maurice McCabe. The Court varied the Court of Appeal’s orders to reflect its conclusion on fair procedures.
The case concerned a 2014 report commissioned by the Government from Guerin, a senior counsel, to examine the handling of McCabe’s allegations about garda investigations and prosecutions. The report was delivered to the Taoiseach on 6 May 2014 and later published. It criticised the Department of Justice’s handling of a complaint against the then Garda Commissioner, including the absence of records showing the Minister’s reasoning and the lack of an independent investigation.
Shatter, then Minister for Justice, resigned the day after receiving the report. He later sought judicial review, arguing, among other things, that the report damaged his reputation, exceeded its terms of reference and was produced without fair procedures. The High Court dismissed his case. The Court of Appeal allowed his appeal, and the Supreme Court granted Guerin leave to appeal on specified legal issues.
In the judgment delivered by McKechnie J., the Supreme Court concluded that the inquiry and report were public in nature and that the report’s criticisms could affect Shatter’s good name. It rejected the argument that the report was merely a preliminary step in a single process with the later O’Higgins Commission of Investigation, finding that the two exercises had different terms and were separated in time.
The Court held that Guerin acted within the terms of reference, so Shatter’s challenge on that ground did not justify an order quashing the report. But the report went beyond a factual review: it expressed critical views about Shatter’s conduct as Minister. The judgment said he should have been given some opportunity to engage with those concerns. It did not hold that an interview or a draft report was necessarily required; the form of a fair opportunity was left to the inquiry’s author. As no opportunity was given, the Court found a breach of fair procedures.
McKechnie J. also described Shatter’s allegation of bias against Guerin as groundless and said it could have justified refusing relief at the court’s discretion. The appeal was nevertheless dismissed on the fair-procedures ground. The judgment does not quash the report: it rejects the separate claim that Guerin exceeded his mandate and directs that the Court of Appeal orders be varied to match the Supreme Court’s reasoning.