Former taoiseach Bertie Ahern has won his High Court challenge to the handling by the Mahon tribunal of its inquiries into certain lodgements to his accounts when he was minister for finance in 1993 and 1994.
The court ruled the tribunal was not entitled to question Mr Ahern on comments made in the Dáil and that he is not obliged to hand over 150 documents over which he claimed legal privilege.
The 150 documents related to Mr Ahern's retention of banking expert Paddy Stronge to refute the tribunal's claims about the nature of two lodgements – one to Mr Ahern's account and one to an account of his former partner Celia Larkin.
The case was heard over two days last month by the president of the High Court, Mr Justice Richard Johnson, sitting with Mr Justice Peter Kelly and Mr Justice Iarfhlaith O'Neill.
The first issue the court had to decide relates to how the tribunal may, given the protection in Article 15.13 of the Constitution attaching to statements made in the Oireachtas by parliamentarians, deal (both in its examination of Mr Ahern and in its report) with statements made in the Dáil in September and in October 2006 about the taoiseach and about his financial affairs.
The court also had to decide if Mr Ahern was entitled to claim legal privilege over the Stronge documents.
A third issue in the case – in which Mr Ahern sought orders requiring the tribunal to hand over documents on which it based its claims concerning the lodgements – was resolved following the tribunal's agreement during the case to hand over those documents.
The documents amount to 110 pages, consist of bank data and computer records - and the tribunal said it considered them as of a limited nature and not relevant to cross-examination.
Delivering the judgment, Mr Justice Peter Kelly said the tribunal was not entitled in law to proceed in questioning Mr Ahern over statements made in the Dáil. "To do so would be a breach of the relevant article 15.13 in the Constitution," he said.
In the 48-page judgment, the High Court accepted Mr Ahern's assertion that his claim over parliamentary privilege was about respecting the Constitution and the law and not about protecting himself.
Mr Justice Kelly continued: "Drawing Mr Ahern's attention to statements made by him in Parliament which are inconsistent with statements made outside it may incorporate a suggestion that the words spoken in Parliament were untrue or misleading. That is not permissible.
"I do not accept the contention of the tribunal that the purpose of such an exercise is to ensure that the evidence before the tribunal is complete.
"Rather, there is a clear suggestion which imputes impropriety to Mr Ahern in respect of utterances made in Parliament. The court can not permit the tribunal to engage in such activity."
The judge said Mr Ahern's counsel accepted that the tribunal may record in its report that statements were made by him in the Dáíl and reproduce those statements.
"It may not, however, suggest that such words were untrue or misleading or inspired by improper motivation. It will be for the reader of the report to draw his own conclusions."
Mr Justice Kelly added that the court was satisfied that Mr Ahern was entitled to litigation privilege in relation to the Stronge documents.
Mr Justice Kelly said all 150 documents were the subject of a claim of litigation privilege, while a further eleven were said to be protected by legal advice privilege.
"Mr Ahern was entitled to claim litigation privilege in respect of the documents," he said.
Mr Ahern was not in court for the short hearing.