Paul Murphy, TD of People Before Profits, has been victorious in a High Court case pertaining to the refusal of the ethics watchdog, Standards in Public Office (SIPO), to scrutinise allegations about Leo Varadkar, the previous Taoiseach, publicising a classified GP contract document to a close acquaintance. Justice Barry O’Donnell determined that Mr Murphy had the right to an order overturning SIPO’s decision, and instructed SIPO to take another look at the matter.
The complaints were centred on allegations that Mr Varadkar, in 2019, leaked a confidential agreement drawn up between the Department of Health, the Irish Medical Organisation (IMO), and HSE, to Dr Maitiú Ó Tuathail, who was then the president of the National Association of General Practitioners (NAGP), which wasn’t part of the discussions at that time about the “GP Contractual Reform and Service Development”.
These details were made public via the Village magazine, and Mr Varadkar gave a public statement that the document was given to Dr O’Suathail, mentioning that, while the act wasn’t in line with best practices, it wasn’t unlawful or inappropriate.
The subsequent complaint from Mr Murphy led to an investigation by the Gardaí, which then submitted a file to the DPP, but in July 2022, the DPP decided that no charges were necessary. SIPO requested a response from Mr Varadkar and decided not to assign an inquiry officer or undertake further investigation, as issued in a four-page report in November 2022. This decision received a mixed vote from SIPO members, with three in favour and two opposed.
Arguing SIPO’s decision-making process violated fair procedures and due process, Mr Murphy began judicial review proceedings. He further expressed that SIPO made an error in not allowing him a chance to address the raised legal issues and for not holding an oral hearing before deciding on the extent of its statutory responsibilities.
SIPO rejected these claims, insisting that their decision-making process was fair, appropriate, and consistent with their statutory duties, and denied allegations of failing to give sufficient reasons.
In his legal decision, Justice O’Donnell emphasised the importance of written explanation for any verdicts made by the Oireachtas, which mirrors the general administrative rule. This is seen as representative of the public’s stake in the proceedings carried out by the Sipo, he noted.
Justice O’Donnell made it clear that Sipo’s current strategy relies fundamentally on a wide assumption that its legal authority doesn’t encroach on the review of grievances linked to actions by the Taoiseach in support of executive capabilities. This reasoning would also exclude probing activities performed by state executives, he noted.
He stated that this hypothesis didn’t particularly derive from the belief that this is a constitutional necessity. Instead, it was presented as a consequence of the legal framework. If a filed grievance prompted the Sipo to exceed its legal reach, it was primarily dismissed, he explained.
However, it wasn’t apparent why Sipo felt it couldn’t secure enough evidence if the complaint was considered valid. The hesitancy might have stemmed from doubts about Sipo’s prerogative to compile evidence from the confidential aspects of the Cabinet’s discussions, though Sipo did not express this, he highlighted.
O’Donnell pointed out that it’s not the court’s responsibility to fill in the gaps or imply unseen understandings in a decision. Further, the Sipo report should be evaluated on its own grounds based on its contents. Concerning the installation of an inquiry officer, he asserted that Sipo’s judgement was legitimate and MV Murphy’s claim of it being flawed or insufficiently justified was not accurate.
Despite this, the court found the decision to forgo an investigation ill-reasoned. As a result, Mr Murphy was granted an order to invalidate Sipo’s decision in November 2022. The case should be revisited by Sipo for further analysis, concluded O’Donnell.