Author of report concerning former minister no longer had authority to amend it

Ryan P (nem diss): Supplemental judgment - finding that report concerning former government minister had breached natural and constititional justice - reliefs sought - declaration - costs - amendment of report - order that author of report deliver order to An Taoiseach - author "functus officio" (authority at an end) - good name of former minister.

"The present position is that Mr. Shatter has succeeded in his claim. This Court has found that the respondent acted in breach of the requirements of natural justice in coming to the conclusions and making the statements that he did about Mr. Shatter in the report that he submitted to the Taoiseach in May 2014. Those conclusions are specific and identifiable in the report and they are criticisms made by Mr. Guerin of Mr. Shatter and this Court has found that they are seriously damaging. Mr. Guerin is functus officio because he has submitted his report to the Taoiseach and events have followed on from there. He does not actually have possession or control of the original report that he submitted."

"It seems to me that the consequences of the judgment of the court are now a matter between Mr. Shatter and the State. I believe that the State has an obligation, as expressed above, to see that Mr. Shatter’s constitutional rights are vindicated, but I leave the mode of achievement of that constitutional imperative to be negotiated and agreed. Failing accord between those parties, the option of returning to the courts is available."

Irvine J (concurring): Appropriate reliefs - whether order should be delivered to An Taoiseach - whether to order report to be amended

"As to the submission that this Court should make an order requiring Mr Guerin to deliver to An Taoiseach a copy of the order of this Court, I am not satisfied that such an order is justified or for that matter required. It is not required, as was submitted by Mr. Sreenan, to give effect to the judgment of the Court. The Court order is a public document and as such Mr. Shatter is in a position to circulate it to whomsoever he wishes."

"The obligation on this Court to vindicate Mr. Shatter’s right to his good name under Art. 40.3.2 of the Constitution is indisputable. However, as the very language of the accompanying obligation in Art. 40.3.1 makes clear, its obligation is to do so as far as is practicable and what is practicable may be circumscribed by the circumstances of the case itself and the parties to the litigation. His rights are to be vindicated within the confines of the litigation. It is in this context that I am satisfied that it is not practicable to grant Mr Shatter an order requiring Mr. Guerin to amend his report of 6th May 2014 in the manner proposed. I accept the submission made by Mr. McDermott that the report is no longer in his client’s possession or under his control, the same having been handed over to the Government on 6th May 2014, some months prior to the commencement of the within proceedings."

Finlay Geoghegan J (concurring): Reliefs sought - whether order to deliver order to Taoiseach was proper.

"In these judicial review proceedings between the appellant and the respondent, my conclusion is that the appellant’s constitutional right to fair procedures and to his good name is as between the appellant and the respondent vindicated by the declaration proposed to be made."