Hypothetical question about any Taoiseach's Dail statements

[feargach]

OK if I understand it correctly, our current Taoiseach is seeking to establish the precedent that everything said in the Dáil is entirely privileged, and can under no circumstances be used against a sitting Taoiseach in any Tribunal.

Please correct me if I have the above wrong.

Here's the hypothetical.

Imagine some future Taoiseach is being investigated by a new Tribunal for some heinous crime. Imagine said Taoiseach gives a Dáil statement about the matter. Presume that, during the statement, the hypothetical Taoiseach (NOT a current or past member of the real Dáil, by the way) blurts out a specific detail about the crime which the public or the politician were never told about.

The DPP may feel that, on the strength of the freudian slip in the Dáil, they have evidence enough to prove that the hypothetical Taoiseach was involved with the crime.

However, if the current Taoiseach's challenge goes through and is accepted, the hypothetical Taoiseach above, though demonstrably guilty of a heinous crime, is obviously immune because of the total privilege of Dáil speech.

In fact, as far as I can tell, a full detailed confession of a crime given in the Dáil chamber would also be inadmissible - Dáil Éireann as confessional.

Is that a correct statement of what the legal position of Dail speeches is, if the current challenge succeeds?

If not, can somebody explain the legal nuances?

[Compound Fracture]

The Taoiseach's proposterous, laughable assertion is that Joe Bloggs TD could call one of his constituents a rapist and a murderer in the Dáil. Mr. Bloggs could then repeat this 100 times outside the Dáil without any repurcussions.

That is the scale of the lunacy that Bertie Ahern is trying to get us to believe, and shows the depths he will go to in order to cover over his own perjury at the Tribunal

[returning officer]

In fact, as far as I can tell, a full detailed confession of a crime given in the Dáil chamber would also be inadmissible...

It has always been that. There are no nuances. It is abolsute. No TD can be answerable for a statement he makes in the Dail in any court or authority.

This has nothing to do with Ahern's sucess in his challenge or not (which may have more to do with whether he repeated the statements outside the Dail).

In fact one can go further and say that a crime committed in the Dail by spoken word cannot be admissable eg a number of years ago it was illegal to give out information on abortion clinics, one TD gave the telephone number out under the same privilge as Ahern's lawyers will use.

[returning officer]

The Taoiseach's proposterous, laughable assertion is that Joe Bloggs TD could call one of his constituents a rapist and a murderer in the Dáil. Mr. Bloggs could then repeat this 100 times outside the Dáil without any repurcussions.

That is the scale of the lunacy that Bertie Ahern is trying to get us to believe, and shows the depths he will go to in order to cover over his own perjury at the Tribunal

This is completely a misstated version of the law and possibly of fact. Commentators may have given the impression that Ahern has claimed that his lawyers claim that repitition has retained the cloak of privilge, decided cases suggest otherwise (although not bindingly).

It is lunacy, it is also inaccurate - but whether that inacacuracy is yours, commentators, or Ahern's, I'm not sure.

[yehbut_nobut]

And yet todays IT reports that Dail privilege didnt seem to be a problem for him in 2004

Before his appearance at the tribunal on April 7th 2004, Mr Ahern submitted a statement in which he referred to comments he had made in the Dáil and attached a copy of the relevant Dáil record to his statement.

During his appearance, excerpts from the Dáil record were displayed on a screen and the Taoiseach was asked questions about what he had said there.

On the day in question, Mr Ahern was represented by Conor Maguire SC, who continues to represent Mr Ahern at the Mahon tribunal.

full story on ireland.com

[feargach]

Really? I had thought it was strictly limited to immunity from libel actions.

So if an actual gangster got elected, or if a criminal gang managed to recruit a TD, that TD could literally threaten to have his underlings break the legs of various businessmen for protection money?

He could actually carry out the threat, have the peoples' legs broken, and get away scot free, because the order was given in the Dáil, as were the threats?

Can a TD give away the location of somebody in the witness protection programme with impunity?

I'm working on a whole list of unthinkable ways in which this power is there to be abused.

Time to amend the constitution to limit the immunity to libel alone, I think.

[returning officer]

Why, was it ok in 2004 but not 2008?
...the legal situation had changed since Mr Ahern's 2004 appearance, as a result of the Howlin ruling in December 2005 .

Can a TD give away the location of somebody in the witness protection programme with impunity?

Good example. Yes - as far as the Courts and other bodies are concerned. They would be answerable to the House only. No amendment is required, I can think of few examples of abuse eg McDowell on Frank Connolly and the abortion one above (although many could say with justification).

[Rocky]

And yet todays IT reports that Dail privilege didnt seem to be a problem for him in 2004

Before his appearance at the tribunal on April 7th 2004, Mr Ahern submitted a statement in which he referred to comments he had made in the Dáil and attached a copy of the relevant Dáil record to his statement.

During his appearance, excerpts from the Dáil record were displayed on a screen and the Taoiseach was asked questions about what he had said there.

On the day in question, Mr Ahern was represented by Conor Maguire SC, who continues to represent Mr Ahern at the Mahon tribunal.

full story on ireland.com

Lowry was also at one point questioned in a tribunal over statements he had made in the Dail.

[markeys]

A red herring folks....


Getting into a debate about whether dail privilege exists in this regard is ignoring that Ahern has had to go to court to save himself from the lies he has told. I'm sure Ahern and co. must be delighted when they read debates like this and thank their lucky stars that the real issue isn't being focused on.

[toxic avenger]

Why, was it ok in 2004 but not 2008?
...the legal situation had changed since Mr Ahern's 2004 appearance, as a result of the Howlin ruling in December 2005 .

Yes, that's the reason he doesn't want to answer... Also should be noted that in 2004, Ahern volunteered the Dail statement of 1999. He wasn't asked for it. Quit the bullsh1t, we all know why he's doing it, and it's not out of some newfound concern for the rights of the Oireachtas. It's to cover his sleazy arse.

Simple solution, let the Tribunal ask the questions, let him have the right to choose not to answer, let us all draw our own conclusions...