Dell hasn’t apologized to former Rehab CEO Angela Kerrins despite Supreme Court acting illegally in questioning PAC

The High Court heard that Del Iren did not offer an apology to former rehab chief executive Angela Kerrins when the Supreme Court found that the Public Accounts Committee acted unlawfully in her treatment when she appeared before her in 2014.

Kerrins’ attorney, John Rogers SC, made the statement on Thursday in response to questioning by Mr Justice Alexander Owens.

A high court judge was asked whether Dell apologized or acted in response to the Supreme Court’s 2019 ruling, to which Mr Rogers replied: “Nothing has come to the fore.”

He said his side had approached the Dell Committee on Procedure and Privileges for Remedies (CPP).

Mr Justice Owens said he was interested to know if there was an apology as he recalled the Supreme Court’s reference to the lack of remedies available to Ms Kerins, as the Dell CPP refused to intervene.

In 2019, a seven-judge Supreme Court declared that the action of the Dáil committee was such that it called for a “significant departure” by at least three members from the terms of the committee’s invitation to Ms. Kerins to appear before it. accepted for

The court found that the invitation and related correspondence allowed inquiries about Ms. Kerrins’s salary and operations by the rehab of three state-funded schemes.

Questions on “well out” areas. This scope took up a significant portion of the February 2014 hearing, which involved rehab in relation to the salaries of other rehab officers and certain other commercial relationships, the court said.

The seven-hour hearing came amid a period of public dispute about her €240,000 salary at Rehab, a private charitable institution, in receipt of extensive public funding.

The High Court is hearing a search application brought by Ms Kerrins in her claim for damages against Dale ireann, the attorney general, and Ireland. It is seeking all the minutes of the meetings of the Committee and/or individual members, whether in public or private session.

These records have been sought, inter alia, in an effort to understand the extent of the knowledge of the Committee regarding the limits of its dispatch for the 2014 hearing. Some of the legal advice received by the committee has also been sought to be disclosed as evidence of the committee’s “state of mind” prior to Ms.

In advancing this claim, a distinction is being made between the committee’s actions and its statements, Rogers said.

This is in the light of the Supreme Court’s finding that although Article 15 of the Constitution provides a wide range of privileges and immunities to the Orichattas and its committees, it does not provide a complete impediment to bringing legal proceedings relating to the functions of the committee.

In her challenge that began in 2014, Ms. Kerins alleged that she was questioned at a February hearing that was a “witch hunt”. She claims that as a result she was too unwell to attend a second related hearing in April. He was so impressed, she said, that he later tried to take his own life.

The first module of her case examined whether courts had jurisdiction to interfere with hearings before orchatas committees.

Mr Kerins appealed to the Supreme Court a three-judge High Court ruling that strongly criticized the committee’s treatment of Ms Kerins, but concluded that the courts could not intervene because of the constitutional separation of powers.

Following its landmark decision, the Supreme Court insisted that any dispute between the parties regarding the further progress of the case should be decided by the High Court, as its decision pertains only to the first module of action.