Why all the fuss about Dáil privilege?

[Brendan Burgess]

Most people seem to agree that Mary Lou's naming of politicians involved with Ansbacher was an abuse of Dáil privilege. So was it ok for the papers to report it?

We make a huge fuss about data protection and privacy, yet when Catherine Murphy uses Dáil privilege to publish information about a citizen, everyone seems to be cheering her on. I don't like Denis O'Brien, but that does not mean that I agree with his confidential information being made public.

By the way, I don't know what information has been read into the Dáil record, so it's the principle of privacy and data protection which I am arguing for here.

Is it really a "constitutional crisis" if TDs have some restrictions in their freedom to say anything they like about someone without restriction?

 

[Delboy]

The issue here is that IBRC is a State run entity and if you expect to keep your banking private, then stay clear of such entities if carrying out multi-million euro dealings. Especially if you are a business man with a controversial past incl links to the current party in power!

 

[Sunny]

Dail privilage is extremely important but it also has to be protected from abuse. Elected politicians should be free to raise issues of national importance without fear of being sued. However, the issue is that there are no real punishments for abusing such a powerful right.

With regard to this particular case, Catherine Murphy is correct to do what she did. She was sneered at and laughed at for months for bringing up concerns about Siteserv. The Minister of Finance basically called her delusional but it now appears that even his own department had concerns. Denis O'Brien was heavily involved in this deal. Denis O'Brien had a banking relationship with Anglo Irish Bank and IBRC. If there are elements of this banking relationship that concern Catherine Murphy, she is right to raise them. She is not talking about his relationship with any other financial instiution. Just this state owned bank where he was involved as a borrower and a buyer of assets. Her claims are on the Oireachtas website and they are extremely concerning with regard to once again seeming to show that a golden circle seems to operate in this Country.

 

[cremeegg]

There is no constitutional crisis, just RTE and the IT trying to make a controversy out of nothing, with Micheal Martin helping.

DOB got a court order preventing RTE from broadcasting certain allegations against him. It is perfectly reasonable for someone to apply to the courts to prevent their private information coming into the public domain. So long as we can trust the courts to make a reasonable judgement on the application, about what can be published and what cannot, there is no cause of controversy here.

Catherine Murphy then voiced the allegations in the Dail, (I am assuming they are the same allegations). As a TD speaking in the Dail she has absolute privilege to do this and the court ruling has no effect on her. There is no restriction on what she can say and the concept of "abuse of Dail privilege" has no legal basis, the phrase is just political name calling. No constitutional crisis there. In my opinion this is all good. An elected TD should be able to speak about any matter they believe is important, if they do so unfairly, well shame on them, and perhaps their voters will not re-elect them but the absolute right to speak in the Dail is a good thing.

Now RTE and the IT are suggesting that the court ruling prevents them reporting Catherine Murphy's comments. This is just over-weening self importance on their part. Now unfortunately I am not in a position to charge €10k a day for my legal opinion, but any first year law student could tell them that the court ruling does not prevent the media from reporting verbatim Catherine Murphy's comments. No doubt RTE and the IT know this well, but its lots more fun to strike up a ruckus about a constitutional crisis, than just do their job

 

[Sunny]

Now RTE and the IT are suggesting that the court ruling prevents them reporting Catherine Murphy's comments. This is just over-weening self importance on their part. Now unfortunately I am not in a position to charge €10k a day for my legal opinion, but any first year law student could tell them that the court ruling does not prevent the media from reporting verbatim Catherine Murphy's comments. No doubt RTE and the IT know this well, but its lots more fun to strike up a ruckus about a constitutional crisis, than just do their job

I agree it's not a Constitutional crisis (think it is the Politicians calling it this rather than the media to be fair) but not sure how you can be so convinced about the legal position about reporting on comments made in the Dail where there is already a High Court Injuction in place. There is no precedence. Indeed the IT have already said they received legal advice not to publish it and I doubt it was from 1st year students. Denis O'Brien's lawyers also threatened them with High Court Action if they reported so they obviously see merit in the legal argument that absolute privilege does not apply here. There is enough legal doubt there. It is ridiculous though that I can go on the Dail's website and read the statement there but can't read it through Irish media.

 

[mathepac]

You can also read the comments on social media. I've shared reports and editorial on fb from the Guardian web-site. I'm awaiting my summons to appear before the High Court.

 

[Delboy]

Don't jinx yourself....DoB is very fond of keeping his legal team in match -fit condition!

 

[WizardDr]

Article 15.12 "All official reports and publications of the Oireachtas or of either House thereof and utterances made in either House wherever published shall be privileged."

What seems to have happened here is that an interlocutory injunction was obtained by Denis O'Brien.

The test on granting injunction has three elements:
1. there must be a serious/fair issue to be tried,
2. damages are not an adequate remedy, and
3. the balance of convenience lies in favour of granting or refusing the application.

We don't actually know the contents.

RTE was not sent a letter by Denis O'Brien but acted on 'legal advice'.

RTE then decide not to report and to wait until Tuesday to go the High Court.

It would seem to me that it is highly unlikely that muzzling Dail was even envisaged but RTE have simply adopted a low-cost risk based approach and even avoided an emergency sitting of the High Court. (The Central Bank use that option to shut Credit Unions!)

That said:

- Do you want TDs able to make statements on matters like Mary Lou did that might be viewed as vindictive and that she apparently cannot support|?
- Do you want privacy to be breached if any TD in Dail decides to reveal it without impunity?
- Should Standing Orders of Dail not be updated to deal with abuses, if that is what Members decide

Or is it the case that generally we do not trust politicians to even tell us the day of the week?

 

[Sunny]

We do know the contents because Catherine Murphy repeated much of the contents in the Dail and we can simply google them.

RTE and every other Irish media outlet including TV3 and the Irish Times were sent legal letters by Denis O'Brien warning them not to report the Dail Comments. That's why there is such a fuss.

 

[Duke of Marmalade]

Most people seem to agree that Mary Lou's naming of politicians involved with Ansbacher was an abuse of Dáil privilege. So was it ok for the papers to report it?

We make a huge fuss about data protection and privacy, yet when Catherine Murphy uses Dáil privilege to publish information about a citizen, everyone seems to be cheering her on. I don't like Denis O'Brien, but that does not mean that I agree with his confidential information being made public.

By the way, I don't know what information has been read into the Dáil record, so it's the principle of privacy and data protection which I am arguing for here.

Is it really a "constitutional crisis" if TDs have some restrictions in their freedom to say anything they like about someone without restriction?

Boss, I have read the transcript. I don't think the issue is about DOB's right to data privacy. There is an allegation that DOB got favourable treatment from a state owned bank. It is a question of whether the claim is factually correct. Alan Dukes says it is not, but since the allegation is about "verbal assurances" we will never know.

I think calling it a constitutional crisis is a bit OTT.

Anyway I think pulling the legal trigger will backfire big time on DOB as this surely will get mega coverage once the courts have ruled. Most people will infer that DOB had something to hide but failed to hide it. Some of course will give hime the benefit of the doubt but since he denies the findings of an Oireachtas Tribunal there will be the suspicion that denial is the only defence DOB knows. And of course Ms Murphy will be a big winner.

 

[cork]

RTE and every other Irish media outlet including TV3 and the Irish Times were sent legal letters by Denis O'Brien warning them not to report the Dail Comments. That's why there is such a fuss.

No media organisation should be treated like this.

That aside whole SITESERV thing needs investigartion.

Fair play to Catherine Murphy.

 

[Purple]

The judge just said that it was not the intention of his court order to restrict what was said in the Dáil or the reporting of same in the media. Cremeegg was spot on above.

 

[dereko1969]

One thing that I don't understand about all of this is whether it was DOB's personal finances or companies that he is in control of that were the subject of the injunction? Playing the personal data card when it would have seemed obvious to me that it was companies he owned that purchased Siteserv seems to be conflating the personal with the corporate which is a dodgy road to go down.