Yesterday's High Court judgment upholding the challenge by 36 garda∅ to the Oireachtas inquiry into the Abbeylara incident is sweeping in its effects on elected politicians.
Already Deputies Alan Shatter, Pat Rabbitte and Joe Higgins have called for an appeal to the Supreme Court, with Mr Shatter and Mr Higgins seeking a constitutional referendum to rectify what they see as an unacceptable limitation of politicians' powers by the courts.
Left unchallenged and unaltered, the decision will strangle at birth the recent attempts by TDs and Senators to be pro-active in inquiring into matters of public interest, making findings and recommending change.
After the successful DIRT tax inquiry in 1999, inquiries were under way into the Abbeylara incident in which John Carthy was shot dead by garda∅ in Longford in April 2000, and into the mini-CTC rail signalling affair.
But yesterday's ruling appears to suggest that not only the Abbeylara inquiry but the others, including the DIRT inquiry, are legally questionable. Any inquiry "liable to result in findings of facts or expressions of opinion adverse to the good name, reputation and/or livelihood of persons not members of such Houses" is outside the authority of the Houses of the Oireachtas, the three-judge divisional court ruled.
It is a landmark legal victory for the 36 garda∅ who took the case after an Oireachtas committee prepared to scrutinise their actions in Longford that led to the death of John Carthy. An internal Garda inquiry had declared the garda∅ blameless for the death. However the Carthy family, their legal representatives and a number of media investigations had challenged this version and led to public concern that the full truth may not have emerged.
As politicians prepared to examine in detail the events leading to Mr Carthy's death, the 36 garda∅ involved objected and the High Court has vindicated their position. The High Court found that the Oireachtas subcommittee was acting outside its powers in purporting to report on and investigate the Abbeylara incident. It did not comply with the requirements of natural and constitutional justice, said the court.
The garda∅ had disputed almost all aspects of the work of the subcommittee, including its powers to compel the attendance of witnesses and to direct the production of documents. They complained that the subcommittee has embarked on a wide-ranging inquiry into the shooting itself rather than confining itself to an examination of the Garda Commissioner's report that had exonerated them.
Lawyers for the State had maintained the Oireachtas has power to establish inquiries into matters of major public importance and the courts should be slow to trespass on such power. However, the court was clear that such inquiries cannot make findings of fact or express opinions that reflect badly on non-Oireachtas members.
The ruling leaves Deputies in the odd position whereby they could, for example, make unproven allegations against individuals under parliamentary privilege without citing evidence, but cannot make "findings of fact or expressions of opinion" adverse to anyone after hearing and assessing evidence.
Independent Deputy Tom Gildea was pressured to withdraw such allegations this week, but this has not always been the case in the past.
Mr Shatter and Mr Rabbitte maintained yesterday that the ruling meant the DIRT inquiry that ended in October 1999 and the ongoing rail signalling inquiry could be considered unlawful.
Their remarks reflect the anger among TDs and senators who see the decision as adding to their marginalisation.