A Donegal County Councillor, who is the subject of an ethics inquiry, wants to be joined to High Court proceedings by a Monaghan councillor aimed at halting a similar but separate inquiry.
John O’Donnell, of Kilmacrennan, Letterkenny, wants to be joined as a notice party to judicial review proceedings by Hugh McElvaney concerning an investigation by the Standards in Public Office Commission into whether Cllr McElvaney breached the ethical framework under the Local Government Act 2001.
The two men, along with a third councillor, Joe Queenan of Sligo County Council, were all made subject of separate investigations by the commission after their respective councils made complaints about their behaviour arising from an RTÉ Investigates programme broadcast in December 2015.
The programme concerned a proposed windfarm development, purportedly by a foreign investment company, represented by a person who gave the name Nina Carlson but was, in fact, an undercover researcher. The programme broadcast footage of separate meetings between the researcher and the three men and also featured recorded phone conversations.
The commission’s inquiries concerning all three councillors went to hearing last September but were put on hold pending Mr McElvaney’s judicial review, which is yet to be heard.
‘Entrapped’
Mr McElvaney, who was a Fine Gael representative at the time but is now an independent, has claimed he was “entrapped” by the researcher. He objected to the commission hearing proceeding for reasons including RTÉ claimed privilege and was not advancing Ms Carlson as a witness who could be cross-examined. He went to the High Court after the commission ruled the hearing could proceed before it on the basis of unedited footage and recordings provided by RTÉ and other evidence.
Mark O’Connell BL, for Mr O’Donnell, said his client wished to be joined as a notice party to the McElvaney judicial review because he would be affected by the outcome and has a “vital interest” in it.
He said Mr McElvaney wants to stop the investigation proceeding on grounds including that he had no opportunity to cross examine the undercover researcher and Mr O’Donnell had raised a similar preliminary objection before the commission hearing concerning him proceeded last September.
Objected
While his client took a “realistic and constructive” approach during that hearing, there was “no guilty plea as such” and Mr O’Donnell had at all times objected to the investigation taking place.
Mr Justice Michael McGrath was told solicitors for Mr McElvaney were aware of Mr O’Donnell’s application to be joined as a notice party and appeared to be neither consenting nor objecting to it.
The commission, represented by James Doherty SC, opposed Mr O’Donnell’s application. He said no objection had been raised on behalf of any of the three concerning the accuracy of the RTÉ recordings.
Mr O’Donnell had not brought his own judicial review, is out of time to do so and cannot “piggyback” on Mr McElvaney’s, he argued. If Mr McElvaney gets an order of prohibition, that will only affect his hearing, he added.
Mr Justice Michael McGrath said he hoped to rule within a week or so.
