A HIGH COURT judge has ruled in favour of People Before Profit TD Paul Murphy in a case he took against the Standards in Public Office Commission (SIPO) after it did not investigate a complaint he made against former Taoiseach Leo Varadkar.

Murphy had filed a complaint to Sipo, the public service ethics watchdog, in November 2020 that Varadkar sent a copy of an agreement between the Government and the Irish Medical Organisation to his then friend Maitiú Ó Tuathail, who was at the time the head of a rival GP group.

Sipo said it would not be pursuing the matter further in November 2022, after Varadkar was “cleared of any criminal wrongdoing and breaches of ethics” following a decision by the Director of Public Prosecutions not to press charges against him.

Murphy filed a High Court case against the watchdog over the decision, claiming the Commission did not adequately explain the reason why it chose not to investigate the matter further.

Today, Justice Barry O’Donnell, in a written judgment, ruled in favour of Murphy as the High Court believed the decision of Sipo “does not adequately explain its decision not to carry out an investigation”.

The judge said in his conclusion: “The applicant is entitled to an order quashing the decision of 9 November 2022 and the matter should be remitted to the Commission for further consideration.”

Speaking to reporters today, Murphy welcomed the verdict from the High Court, labelling it an “important victory for transparency and for holding politicians to account” and called on Sipo to carry out an inquiry into the then Taoiseach’s actions in his complaint.

Murphy said: “It (the complaint) no longer stands, it no longer exists in a sense. The judge has firmly put the ball back into the court of Sipo, by saying that matters should be readmitted to the commission for further consideration.”

He has called on Sipo to investigate further and to publish their findings to the public as soon as possible.

The watchdog said at the time that it did not have the remit to consider “either the lawfulness of the action or the extent of the powers of the office of Taoiseach”.

However, Judge O’Donnell said it was not explained “with sufficient clarity” how or why Sipo concluded that its remit did not extend to investigating the matters in Murphy’s complaint.

Additionally, the judge said that it was also not explained how Sipo’s decision was sufficiently in line with the the Ethics in Public Office Act 1995.

Varadkar, who denied criminal or ethical wrongdoing, previously described the allegations over the leak in Murphy’s complaint as “false” and “politically motivated”.

The judgment today says that the High Court’s ruling “is not concerned with decisions either that the complaint was frivolous or vexatious” or whether there was enough evidence to pursuit any further investigations.

However, the judgment adds, the provisions relating to those matters were considered in order to “understand the overall statutory framework within which the Commission must operate”.

The judgement also notes: “There does not appear to be any provision allowing for a form of statutory appeal from a decision of the Commission.”

It adds: “In the premises, a person affected by and unsatisfied with a decision of the Commission appears to be restricted to seeking to agitate that issue by way of judicial review.”

Over eight pages of the judgment, the judge outlines examples in case law where State bodies have a “duty to give reasons” about decisions made it made after a tribunal and lists six “factors”, from the Oireachtas, that the body’s reasons must have.

Though this case did not involve “a scenario where the Commission made a finding that the complaint was frivolous or vexatious”, the judgment notes the fact that the Oireachtas has required that Sipo provide reasons for such a decision “is material to the overall consideration” of complaints.

The People Before Profit TD claimed it is “scandalous” that members of Government “rallied around [Varadkar] at the time, despite this clear breach of the ethics legislation”.

“It is worth noting that if he was still Taoiseach and Sipo was compelled to investigate, his position would now be untenable,” Murphy noted.

He added: “I would like to thank our legal team, Prospect Law, Ruadhan Mac Aodhain of Prospect Law and our counsel, Gary Moloney BL and Feichin McDonagh SC.”