Vol. 568 No. 1
661 Mr. McGinley asked the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform if, in view of a recent High Court judgment by Mr. Justice Peart which indicated that there was no impediment to the Government providing the ongoing legal costs for the legal team of persons (details supplied) before the Morris tribunal, he will now consider providing such ongoing costs as applied in both the Stardust and haemophiliac's tribunals. [15364/03]
A number of different parties have sought to be provided with advance funding for the costs of representation before the Morris tribunal. For good reasons I am against such an approach.
On 13 May 2003 Mr. Justice Michael Peart delivered his judgment in the case of Frank McBrearty senior and the Honourable Mr. Justice Frederick Morris. He held that Mr. McBrearty and his extended family did not have a legal or constitutional right to have their legal representation funded or provided for in advance of the tribunal reaching findings. As I have stated on a number of occasions, the Morris tribunal is a tribunal of inquiry, not a court of law. It is inquisitorial not adversarial. The onus to establish the facts and inquire into the matters in question falls on the tribunal itself.
I do not propose to provide advance funding for representation of selected persons appearing before the tribunal. The question of costs is determined by the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Acts 1921 to 2002. The Acts allow a tribunal, which is of opinion that, having regard to its findings and all other relevant matters, there are sufficient reasons rendering it equitable to do so, to order the whole or part of the costs of representation of a person appearing before it, to be paid. A tribunal, when determining whether costs should be paid, may take into account failure to co-operate or to provide assistance to or knowingly giving false or misleading information to the tribunal. The reasonable legal costs of participants are therefore effectively guaranteed in advance provided those persons co-operate with the tribunal, although actual payments are not made in advance. It would be wrong to make an exception in this case by deciding, in effect, to remove the tribunal's discretion to make provision for the cost of witnesses as it judges appropriate, having regard to all the facts.
