Dublin mayor fails in appeal against ethics ruling

Dublin Lord Mayor Oisin Quinn has failed to overturn a Standards in Public Office Commission finding that he inadvertently committed minor breaches of ethics legislation.

Labour Party Councillor Quinn, who with his five siblings owns a substantial office premises in Lower Mount Street, had claimed he did not have a conflict of interest when voting on maximum heights for buildings in the city.

He and Dublin City Council had asked the High Court to overturn a Commission finding against him in February 2012 on grounds it was irrational and unreasonable.

The Commission found the interest of the councillor and his siblings in the Mount Street premises “could not be regarded as so remote or insignificant that it could not be reasonably regarded as unlikely to influence” the Cllr in the performance of his functions.

Yesterday, Mr Justice John Hedigan ruled the commission's finding was eminently reasonable, fair and involved a rational appraisal of the perception of the matter based on an agreed factual background.

It should be noted the commission had exonerated Cllr Quinn from any impropriety and had said the contraventions of ethics legislation were inadvertent, minor in nature and that he had acted in good faith, the judge said.

During the case, Cllr Quinn had introduced evidence from a council planning officer seeking to demonstrate he was no more likely to benefit from an amending of building heights after the city plan was changed than before, the judge said.

Apart from the “doubtful relevance” of this evidence, it was not open to the court to consider it as the case was a judicial review of the commission’s decision and not an appeal, which can involve new evidence, he said.

The commission found Cllr Quinn’s interest in the property was not so remote as to be reasonably regarded as likely to influence his vote, the judge said. “Reasonably regarded” refers to perception rather than objective reality and it was “classically a matter of judgment” as to whether it was so, he said.

The commission, comprising a former High Court judge, the Ombudsman, Comptroller and Auditor General, Clerk of the Dail, Clerk of the Seanad and a former Cabinet Minister, was an expert tribunal, Mr Justice Hedigan said.

In making its finding against Cllr Quinn, it was “hard to imagine” a body more qualified than the commission, he said. The judge also found the council had no legal standing to bring the court action as it was not a party to the commission’s inquiry.

In the action, Cllr Quinn sought to overturn the finding of four ethics breaches by him. He contended the commission failed in its duty to obtain all relevant facts in making its determination and there was no evidence before it that the Mount Street building was likely to benefit from any increase in value as a result of the vote on maximum heights.

Cllr Quinn argued he had declared his interest and was advised by the council’s own law agent his one-sixth interest in the Mount Street offices did not warrant his withdrawal from a meeting voting on building heights.

The case arose out of complaints made to the commission by Village magazine editor Michael Smith and independent city councillor Cieran Perry that Cllr Quinn did not disclose his interest and did not withdraw from two council meetings which voted on building heights.