The High Court has overturned the findings of the Seanad Committee on Members' Interests and the decision to suspend Senator Ivor Callely from the House last July.

The Court found that the Committee had acted beyond its powers by making a political judgment after an investigation into Senator Callely's claims for expenses.

The Seanad Committee on Members' Interests found he had wrongly used his address in Cork to claim expenses.

But the Senator claimed he had complied with a Department of Finance definition for a normal place of residence, which does not require it to be a principal home.

At a three-day High Court hearing, the committee argued that despite the definition, it was entitled to make a political and ethical judgment against Senator Callely and the courts could not and should not interfere.

Mr Justice Iarfhlaith O’Neill disagreed. Under the Constitution, the Oireachtas regulates its own business under standing orders. But because the investigation and disciplinary procedure were carried out under legislation - the Standards in Public Office Act - the exclusive jurisdiction of the Oireachtas did not apply.

The judge said a key issue was the fact that a member of the public could make a complaint against a member of the Oireachtas under the Standards in Public Office Act.

At that point, the Act ceases to be a scheme of internal regulation by the Seanad of its own members, he said.

A member of the public who makes a complaint would have access to the courts if they were dissatisfied with how the complaint was dealt with.

He said it would seem odd to say the least, if a member of the Seanad, against whom a complaint had been made by a member of the public, did not have the same access to the courts.

He said: ‘The standards of natural justice and fair procedures prescribed by the law to which all citizens are entitled cannot be displaced by a “political judgment'” simply because the person affected is a member of the Oireachtas.

‘Members of the Oireachtas, like all human persons in this jurisdiction, enjoy the full protection of the Constitution.’

The court found the Seanad Committee on Members' Interests had acted beyond its powers in making a political judgment in the matters being investigated.

The judge said the members had misdirected themselves in law on the definition of a normal place of residence.

Therefore, Ivor Callely's constitutional right to natural justice and fair procedures had been breached. He had not been given a chance to defend himself against a charge of breaching political ethics.

Callely satisfied with decision

A statement from solicitors acting for Senator Callely expressed ‘his satisfaction with the High Court decision, which clearly vindicates his position.’

It continued: "Senator Callely, his wife and family have suffered greatly from having been placed in the glare of mediate publicity with attendant adverse, unfair and defamatory comments from some sections of the media.

‘Senator Callely will now be reviewing his legal decisions going forward with his legal advisers and, on their advice, will not be making any further comments at this time.

‘Senator Callely, on behalf of his wife and family, wished to express his heartfelt thanks to many friends and supporters who have given him tremendous support and encouragement at a time when he was under sustained attack. Senator Callely also takes the opportunity to thank his legal advisers.’

The Select Committee on Members' Interests of Seanad Éireann will be considering today's judgment in detail at a meeting of the committee scheduled for next Wednesday.

The case will come before the High Court on Monday week when the issue of costs and possibly damages may be dealt with.

Mullen not surprised by ruling

Independent Senator Rónan Mullen has said he is not surprised that Senator Callely won his High Court action.

Senator Mullen said clear definition of 'normal place of residence' is not in place, and that there is a need for clarity in relation to 'definitions'.

Senator Mullen also said there is a need for an external scrutineer, such as a retired High Court judge, to deal with these kinds of issues, and not a Senate Committee.

