The Gazette 1975

determination would be the Inspector who heard and observed the witnesses. The expert evidence of officers of the Department may be given in evidence at an oral hearing before an Inspector. The inferences to be drawn from opinions of experts may be taken by the Minister, and not by the Inspector. Before making his decision, the Minister must con- sider the evidence and facts reported to him by the Inspector. If necessary, the Minister may consult the High Gourt on a point of law, and he may also find it necessary to consult a legal or planning adviser in order to obtain technical assistance strictly on the report. If an official has given evidence before the Inspector, he should not be consulted by the Minister. The Minister may not invite the Inspector or anyone else to make the decision required of him. On the facts, the Minister, on the hearing of the appeal did not merely consider the report of the Inspector on the oral hearing, but also a complete departmental file containing much additional irrelevant material. The appeal is dismissed on the grounds stated by O'Higgins J. and the plaintiff is entitled to a fresh oral hearing. (Susan Geraghty v. Minister for Local Government (No. 2) — Supreme Court (Walsh, Budd, Henchy, Griffin and Gannon J.J.) — Separate judgments by Walsh J., Henchy J. and Gannon J. — unreported — 30 July 1975.) Defendant had obtained an injunction from Kenny J. in September against plaintiffs, restraining them from publishing further articles about him, on the alleged ground that they were libellous. Defendant, John Grey, of Thomastown Avenue, Dun Laoghaire, complained that on September 21 an article in the Sunday World entitled "Find this evil man", alleged that he lived off the immoral earnings of prostitutes, that he organised prostitution in Dublin, and that he had beaten, threat- ened and intimidated prostitutes either to pay money or to leave the country. Plaintiffs contended that they had published defamatory statements about defendant, and that they had ample justification to publish more defamatory matter about him. Plaintiffs then produced four affidavits from prostitutes proving physical moles- tation, dire threats, and intimidation to kill. Having read these affidavits, Kenny J. revoked the injunction, and gave the plaintiffs permission to print the material they had intended. (Sunday Newspapers Ltd. and Creation Printing Co. Ltd. v. Grey and Deans — Kenny J. — unreported — 13 October 1975.) Injunction for alleged libel removed when facts granting it were proved false.

hearing is requested, it must be held. The Inspector is to furnish to the Minister a report on (not of) the oral hearing. A report on the oral hearing reports an accur- ate, but not necessarily exhaustive account of what transpired at the hearing. It is inherent in the scheme that the facts shall be found by the Inspector. It is he who will have seen and heard the witnesses, and con- sequently the Minister, who learns only of the evidence at secondhand, cannot decide the evidence which might conflict with the person who saw and heard the wit- nesses. While the Inspector must include in his report a fair and accurate summary of the facts, he niay include observations, submissions and recommendations of what took place. The Minister must determine the application as if it had been made in the first instance. As a layman, he may not understand technical considerations, so he has a right to inform himself by expert opinion, whether from experts from within or without his Department. But, under the guise of expert advice, the Minister may not allow himself to be informed as to factual matters not in the report. As the Minister is acting in a quasi- judicial capacity, he must not act in disregard of the rules of Natural Justice. In this case the Inspector's report was merely treated as an inter-departmental memorandum, subject to com- ment, criticism and correction, rather than as a statu- tory document. Other officials of the Department also put forward their views. What eventually reached the Minister was not an Inspector's report, but rather a series of memoranda with interpolated comment and suggestions which was not permitted by the Act. The decision was consequently ultra vires and invalid. In this case the Inspector and the other officials appear to have misconstrued their roles through inadvertency. The appeal is consequently dismissed. Gannon J. with whom Griffin J. concurred, stated that the function laid upon the Minister in this case is cast on him as a designated person, and is consequently not an executive function. If the Minister is exercising Ministerial functions as he would under S. 23 of the 1963 Act, by giving guidance and general instructions relating to the preparation of a development plan, then the Minister has available to him the technical and expert advice of a specialized planning section of his Department. If the Minister is a designated person, this does not necessarily require the involvement of the planning or any section of the Department. The oral hearing under S. 82 is a public hearing and the Legislature clearly intends that the Minister should make his determination only on the evidence elicited at such hearing. In relation to designated questions of fact, it would seem that the only person who could make a

. 2 7 0