Supreme Court dismisses Angela Kerins' appeal for Dáil documents in damages claim

The case arises out of her treatment at a 2014 Public Accounts Committee amid controversy over her €240,000 salary

The Supreme Court found Angela Kerins' (pictured) claim for damages for alleged injuries arising out of her treatment at a 2014 Public Accounts Committee seeks to make the speech of Oireachtas members amenable to the court. Pic: Collins Courts

Former Rehab chief Angela Kerins has lost her Supreme Court appeal aimed at seeking Dáil documents.

The Supreme Court found her claim for damages for alleged injuries arising out of her treatment at a 2014 Public Accounts Committee (PAC) seeks to make the speech of Oireachtas members amenable to the court.

Ruling for the court on Tuesday, the Chief Justice said the Kerins damages claim, as formulated in this case, is precluded by the provisions of Article 15 of the Constitution, which confers a privilege on parliamentary utterances.

The court dismissed her appeal seeking Dáil documents to aid her quest for damages.

In a lead judgment supported by his six colleagues, Mr Justice Donal O’Donnell said the “gravamen” of her claim is that she suffered damage to her reputation and health by reason of what was “said” during the hearing.

It was not permissible for her to simply re-characterise the constitutionally protected words and utterances of the elected members of the committee as the PAC’s conduct and actions for which the Dáil could be sued for damages, he said.

To do so would be inconsistent with the logic and reasoning of an earlier Supreme Court decision in this case and would “effectively remove the privilege” of the speech of Oireachtas members, he said.

This decision does not mean Mr Kerins did not have any constitutional rights in her dealings with the PAC, and there is a duty on the Oireachtas in this regard, he added. Mr Justice Gerard Hogan and Mr Justice Brian Murray gave concurring judgments.

Mr Justice Brian Murray and Mr Justice Gerard Hogan delivered separate judgments that concurred with that of the Chief Justice.

Mr Justice Murray said that there is “no possible amendment” to her case that could alter the fact it asks the court to impose civil liability on Dáil Éireann because of statements by the PAC members.

Mr Justice Hogan said in a case like this the “remedy lies with the Oireachtas”, which has a constitutional duty to vindicate her rights, including to her good name. It alone “can do justice to the plaintiff”, he said, adding: “It will now be a matter for the Oireachtas to determine whether it has adequately discharged that constitutional duty.”

PAC appearance

Ms Kerins appeared before the PAC in February 2014 amid controversy over her €240,000 salary.

In her long-running case, she claims the committee subjected her to a “witch hunt” style of questioning and that she was so overwhelmed by what happened at the hearing that she later attempted to take her life and could not attend a follow-up hearing that April. She resigned from her role that month.

In 2019, the Supreme Court ruled on the first module of her action and found that the committee acted unlawfully as a whole by straying significantly outside its terms of reference and the terms of an invitation to her.

The court’s declaration related to the PAC’s actions, and any question related to potential damages arising out of alleged misfeasance in public office was to be dealt with first by the High Court.

Pre-trial request

Ruling on her pre-trial request for discovery of Dáil documents, Mr Justice Alexander Owens, of the High Court, said article 15.13 of the Constitution precluded him from entertaining her application as her claim “calls for judgment on speech and debate by members of Dáil Éireann”.

He said her action for damages was “not maintainable” due to the constitutional protection placed on utterances in the Dáil, which extends to activities of committees within the Houses of the Oireachtas.

In her appeal to the Supreme Court, Ms Kerins’s lawyers argued she “never sought to litigate the utterances” of the committee members. Rather, her case sought damages over the PAC’s “actions”.

Dáil Éireann, Ireland and the Attorney General contested the appeal. Her claims about the PAC have been denied, and the committee has previously argued it was entitled to ask questions concerning State funding to Rehab.