• Embed Doc
  • Copy Link
  • Readcast
  • Collections
  • CommentGo Back
Download
 
TRIBUNAL OF INQUIRYPAYMENTS TO MESSRS. CHARLES HAUGHEY AND MICHAEL LOWRY APPLICATION IN RELATION TO NON-AVAILABILITYOF MICHAEL ANDERSEN SUBMISSIONS OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, REPRESENTING THEPUBLIC INTEREST 1. Preliminary Remarks– the role of the Attorney General, Representing thePublic Interest 
1.1
 
At a sitting of this Tribunal, held on the 5
th
November, 1998, the Sole Member granted limited representation to the Attorney General representing the PublicInterest (“the Public Interest”). 1.2
 
At the hearing, Counsel for the Public Interest indicated that the representationsought was confined in general terms to three particular matters as follows: 
“The first are issues where a question of the Constitution may be raised, and theAttorney General, as guardian of the Public Interest, feels that it is appropriatefor him to be involved independently of the Tribunal itself. The second is where a dispute may arise about the terms of reference of the Tribunal or the words of the resolution giving effect to the establishment of the Tribunal. And the third is a question where there may be a dispute relating to the powers of theTribunal or the interpretation of the relevant legislation under which the Tribunalis to operate. 
 
In indicating those limited realms of involvement for Counsel for the PublicInterest, I would like to make it clear, lest there be any confusion in the matter, thatit is our view that it is not appropriate for the Public Interest to be involved in thefacts into which the Tribunal has to enquire themselves. The primary role for investigating the facts, and where relevant facts are discovered, laying them in public before the Tribunal rests upon the Tribunal and its own legal team. Obviously, any parties who may be legitimately interested in any of those facts arealso entitled to be heard.”
 1.3
 
These submissions are made having regard to these principles and, in particular,the principle that the Public Interest does not consider it appropriate for it beinvolved in a consideration of the factual issues before this Tribunal. 1.4
 
The Public Interest understands that the issue being considered by the Tribunal isthe consequences of the non-availability to give evidence of Mr. MichaelAndersen. It notes the Tribunal’s statement that it is proceeding on the basis thatfor all practical purposes, Mr. Andersen’s evidence will not be available. Thisdetermination is one for the Tribunal itself to consider and make. 1.5
 
The Public Interest submits is that it is appropriate for the Tribunal to continuewith its hearings into the grant of the Second GSM Licence notwithstanding theabsence of Mr. Andersen, and that it is a matter for the Tribunal, having regard to principles of natural and constitutional justice, to ultimately reach suchconclusions, if any, as it considers appropriate in light of the absence of Mr.Andersen. 
2. The Public Interest in the Continuation of Hearings
 2.1
 
Under s.1(1) of the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act, 1921, a tribunal isestablished for the purpose of “
inquiring into a definite matter… of urgent publicimportance
” The Dail and Seanad resolutions of September, 1997, which are
 
incorporated into the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Acts, 1921 and 1979 (No. 2)Order, 1997 establishing the Tribunal, make it clear that the matters in respect of which the Tribunal is enquiring are matters of “
urgent public importance
”, andthat the Tribunal was established bearing in mind “
 serious public concern
” arisingfrom the report of the Tribunal of Inquiry (Dunnes Payments). 2.2
 
The public interest in the work of this Tribunal has been noted by the Courts on anumber of occasions. In
 Haughey v. Moriarty
[1]
, the Supreme Court (per Hamilton C.J.) adopted
[2]
the following statement from Salmon Commission
[3]
: 
“The inquisitorial procedure is alien to the concept of justice generally acceptedin the United Kingdom. There are, however, exceptional cases in which such procedures must be used to preserve the purity and integrity of our public lifewithout which a successful democracy is impossible. It is essential that on thevery rare occasions where crises of public confidence occur, the evil, if it exists,shall be exposed so that it may be rooted out; or if it does not exist, the publicshall be satisfied that, in reality, there is no substance in the prevalent rumoursand suspicions by which they have been disturbed. We are satisfied that thiswould be difficult, if not impossible, without public investigation by aninquisitorial tribunal to invest in the powers conferred by the Act of 1921).”
[4]
 2.3
 
Considering the terms of reference of this Tribunal, Hamilton C. J. referred to thereport of the Tribunal of Inquiry (Dunnes Payments) and continued
[5]
: 
“The disclosures contained in the said report undoubtedly caused publicdisquiet, which was recognised by both Houses of the Oireachtas whoconsidered it necessary for the purposes of allaying such public disquiet toresolve as provided in the said resolution [establishing this Tribunal].It cannot be suggested that the matters referred to therein were not of urgent public importance, and that it was not within the jurisdiction of both Houses of the Oireachtas so as to regard them, and of the Taoiseach to appoint a tribunal,whose principal function was to restore public confidence in democraticinstitutions by having the most rigorous possible inquiry, consistent with rights
of 00

Leave a Comment

You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...
You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...