The publication of the report of an internal Garda inquiry into the events at Abbeylara did nothing to allay public disquiet about the death of John Carthy.
That report was laid before the Oireachtas and referred to the Joint Committee on Justice, Equality, Defence and Women's Rights which in turn established a subcommittee to examine it.
The joint committee subsequently amended its order to allow the subcommittee to address possible conflicts of fact and, to this end, to compel witnesses to appear before it and produce relevant documents. It also laid down procedures under which it would operate, including restrictions on the right of lawyers for those appearing before it to cross-examine witnesses.
Those ordered to appear included the members of the Garda Emergency Response Unit. They challenged its authority to conduct such an inquiry on several grounds and took judicial review proceedings against the committee. Yesterday the three-judge divisional court of the High Court upheld its main objections to the committee's remit.
A substantial part of this judgment is devoted to examining flaws in the manner in which its terms of reference were changed, which cast a doubt over the committee's legality. It also raises wider issues about the conduct of Oireachtas committees in general.
The decision hinges on a central constitutional principle that has featured in a number of challenges to the work both of Oireachtas committees and of tribunals. This is the separation of powers between the legislature (Dβil and Seanad), the executive (Government) and the courts.
The Constitution states that the High Court is "invested with full original jurisdiction in and power to determine all matters and questions whether of law or fact, civil and criminal". It also makes clear that the courts cannot interfere in the legislating function of parliament or the executive functions of Government unless they step outside the Constitution.
This Abbeylara subcommittee was inquiring into matters of fact in a way which could have serious implications for the reputations and livelihoods of citizens, according to the judgment.
Neither parliament nor any of its committees has such an adjudicative function, according to the court. This does not mean they cannot inquire into the conduct of their own members, through, for example, the Committee on Ethics.
Committees can also inquire into facts relevant to the work of parliament, such as examining government decisions.
This judgment, however, means citizens cannot be called before Oireachtas committees and subjected to a process which could damage their good name or livelihood. This clearly has implications for other inquiries. Tribunals have gone further, but they have historically been set up as independent bodies, free from party political considerations, with the rights of the citizen guaranteed and the rules of fair procedure in place. That seems to be the way the court is pointing for the future.