Kerins vs Public Accounts Committee

This case involved a claim for damages by Angela Kerins against the Public Accounts Committee (PAC), focusing on constitutional privileges and the non-justiciability of parliamentary utterances.

TLDR:

• Angela Kerins filed a lawsuit for damages against the PAC.
• The High Court dismissed the claim based on constitutional privileges.
• The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, emphasizing the non-justiciability of parliamentary utterances.

Angela Kerins, the former CEO of Rehab, brought a claim for damages against the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) following her appearance before the committee in 2014. The claim was based on alleged defamatory comments and improper questioning by PAC members, which Kerins argued damaged her reputation and health.

The High Court dismissed Kerins' claim, citing constitutional privileges that protect parliamentary utterances from judicial scrutiny. The court emphasized that members of the Oireachtas are immune from suit in respect of speech and debate within the Houses of the Oireachtas, as protected under Article 15.13 of the Constitution.

Kerins appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that the High Court's decision was inconsistent with previous rulings in Kerins (Nos. 1 and 2), which allowed for some judicial scrutiny of parliamentary proceedings. However, the Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, reiterating the absolute nature of the constitutional protection for parliamentary utterances.

The Supreme Court noted that the claim for damages was fundamentally based on what was said during the PAC hearings. The court held that allowing the claim would effectively undermine the constitutional privilege granted to parliamentary utterances, which is essential for the parliamentary process.

The court also considered whether the claim fell within the possible exception noted in Callely v. Moylan, which allows for judicial intervention in cases of a fundamental departure from constitutional principles. However, the court concluded that the facts of this case did not meet the high threshold required for such an exception.

Ultimately, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming that the constitutional protections for parliamentary utterances precluded Kerins' claim for damages. The court emphasized the importance of maintaining the separation of powers and upholding the privileges essential for the functioning of the Oireachtas.

This case underscores the robust constitutional protections afforded to parliamentary utterances in Ireland and the limited scope for judicial intervention in parliamentary proceedings.

Legal representatives: Ms. Mary O'Toole SC for the appellant, Mr. Paul Gallagher SC for the respondents.

Judicial Panel: Clarke CJ, O'Donnell J, MacMenamin J, Dunne J, Charleton J.

Case Citation Reference: [2023] IESC 45