Leo Varadkar story in The Village??? - Mod Notes and banned Users in OP updated 16/05

blanch152 wrote: »

Well, if there is only a common law infringement on confidentiality, why are the Gardai investigating, when the action should be taken by the injured party (if any)?

Your answer only helps the argument that there is nothing to see here, other than bluster.

You're taking the piss, right?

They're investigating a criminal offence under the Act, which refers to but doesn't define 'confidential' information.

Therefore, if a dispute arises as to what constitutes confidential information then a court will decide based on previous case law.

It's not a common law infringement. There's just no statutory definition of confidential. You decided that the fact that a poster on boards can't give you a definition means this must be all 'bluster'. I'm just trying to clear things up for you.

shatners bassoon wrote: »

You're taking the piss, right?

They're investigating a criminal offence under the Act, which refers to but doesn't define 'confidential' information.

Therefore, if a dispute arises as to what constitutes confidential information then a court will decide based on previous case law.

It's not a common law infringement. There's just no statutory definition of confidential. You decided that the fact that a poster on boards can't give you a definition means this must be all 'bluster'. I'm just trying to clear things up for you.

Worth noting that it does refer to: 'a document or information which is secret or confidential or is expressed to be'.

I would argue that stamping 'Confidential' across the front would be a pretty good expression of confidentiality.

shatners bassoon wrote: »

Worth noting that it does refer to: 'a document or information which is secret or confidential or is expressed to be'.

I would argue that stamping 'Confidential' across the front would be a pretty good expression of confidentiality.

You would think that now but there are some here who think that is not enough. I think the document had Confidential and not for distribution stamped on it, now I could be wrong on that.

Plus what no one seems to want to answer here especially those who say Varadkar did nothing wrong, then why did he admit to leaking a confidential document if it wasn't confidential and why did he apologise for it? Varadkar seems to me to be a person that wouldn't admit to doing something wrong if it wasn't wrong nor is he, as we seen the NPHET fiasco, one to apologise either when he is in the wrong.

shatners bassoon wrote: »

Worth noting that it does refer to: 'a document or information which is secret or confidential or is expressed to be'.

I would argue that stamping 'Confidential' across the front would be a pretty good expression of confidentiality.

Ireland2021 wrote: »

The Official Secrets Act makes it an offence for “a public official” to leak documents of a sensitive nature.

Let us have a closer look at the Official Secrets Act.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1963/act/1/enacted/en/html

It has been surmised that the Act does not define confidential. However, it does state in Section 2 (3) that:

"(3) A certificate given by a Minister under his seal that any official code word or password or any sketch, plan, model, article, note, document or information specified or indicated in the certificate is secret or confidential shall be conclusive evidence of the fact so certified."

The first question from the Gardai is whether the Minister did so certify the document as confidential. If not, there is immediately doubt as to the confidential nature of the document in a legal sense.

Then there is Section 4.

Subsection (1) states:

"(1) A person shall not communicate any official information to any other person unless he is duly authorised to do so or does so in the course of and in accordance with his duties as the holder of a public office or when it is his duty in the interest of the State to communicate it."

So far so good, a person cannot communicate any official information, unless authorised to do so. So how can you be authorised?

"(4) In this section “duly authorised” means authorised by a Minister or State authority or by some person authorised in that behalf by a Minister or State authority."

Ah, "a Minister" can authorise it, not "the" Minister. Essentially, if Varadkar is covered by the Act, (and we will come to that in a minute), then he could authorise himself to issue it, it didn't have to be Harris.

Are Ministers covered by the OSA? A good question, and not clear.

"“public office” means an office or employment which is wholly remunerated out of the Central Fund or out of moneys provided by the Oireachtas, or an appointment to, or employment under, any commission, committee or tribunal set up by the Government or a Minister for the purposes of any inquiry, but does not include membership of either House of the Oireachtas."

They are certainly excluded from some elements of the Act, under this definition. Does that apply in full to all elements?

Finally, even if all of the above applies to Varadkar, that the document was confidential, that he is covered by the Act, etc. there is still one further saving clause in Section 4(1) where it states "when it is his duty in the interest of the State to communicate it." He was Taoiseach at the time, and if he believed it was in the interest of the State in securing a deal with doctors that he was justified in sharing a confidential document covered by the OSA, then there was no offence. Hard to believe that the courts would second-guess the Taoiseach on this point.

This will all be shown to be a fuss about nothing. I have gone over this before in this thread, and there was little rebuttal the last time. I would be interested in any basis for a different opinion. I also think that is why Pearse has backed down from SF allegations of criminality.

blanch152 wrote: »

Let us have a closer look at the Official Secrets Act.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1963/act/1/enacted/en/html

It has been surmised that the Act does not define confidential. However, it does state in Section 2 (3) that:

"(3) A certificate given by a Minister under his seal that any official code word or password or any sketch, plan, model, article, note, document or information specified or indicated in the certificate is secret or confidential shall be conclusive evidence of the fact so certified."

The first question from the Gardai is whether the Minister did so certify the document as confidential. If not, there is immediately doubt as to the confidential nature of the document in a legal sense.

Then there is Section 4.

Subsection (1) states:

"(1) A person shall not communicate any official information to any other person unless he is duly authorised to do so or does so in the course of and in accordance with his duties as the holder of a public office or when it is his duty in the interest of the State to communicate it."

So far so good, a person cannot communicate any official information, unless authorised to do so. So how can you be authorised?

"(4) In this section “duly authorised” means authorised by a Minister or State authority or by some person authorised in that behalf by a Minister or State authority."

Ah, "a Minister" can authorise it, not "the" Minister. Essentially, if Varadkar is covered by the Act, (and we will come to that in a minute), then he could authorise himself to issue it, it didn't have to be Harris.

Are Ministers covered by the OSA? A good question, and not clear.

"“public office” means an office or employment which is wholly remunerated out of the Central Fund or out of moneys provided by the Oireachtas, or an appointment to, or employment under, any commission, committee or tribunal set up by the Government or a Minister for the purposes of any inquiry, but does not include membership of either House of the Oireachtas."

They are certainly excluded from some elements of the Act, under this definition. Does that apply in full to all elements?

Finally, even if all of the above applies to Varadkar, that the document was confidential, that he is covered by the Act, etc. there is still one further saving clause in Section 4(1) where it states "when it is his duty in the interest of the State to communicate it." He was Taoiseach at the time, and if he believed it was in the interest of the State in securing a deal with doctors that he was justified in sharing a confidential document covered by the OSA, then there was no offence. Hard to believe that the courts would second-guess the Taoiseach on this point.

This will all be shown to be a fuss about nothing. I have gone over this before in this thread, and there was little rebuttal the last time. I would be interested in any basis for a different opinion. I also think that is why Pearse has backed down from SF allegations of criminality.

The basis for another 'opinion' is being investigated by SIPO and the Gardai.

No-one is interested in your selective view of the legislation, don't confuse that with fear of rebutting you.

Varadkar has already confessed to wrongdoing, it remains to be seen if that has a criminal implication.

blanch152 wrote: »

What Act?

blanch152 wrote: »

Let us have a closer look at the Official Secrets Act.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1963/act/1/enacted/en/html

It has been surmised that the Act does not define confidential. However, it does state in Section 2 (3) that:

"(3) A certificate given by a Minister under his seal that any official code word or password or any sketch, plan, model, article, note, document or information specified or indicated in the certificate is secret or confidential shall be conclusive evidence of the fact so certified."

The first question from the Gardai is whether the Minister did so certify the document as confidential. If not, there is immediately doubt as to the confidential nature of the document in a legal sense.

Then there is Section 4.

Subsection (1) states:

"(1) A person shall not communicate any official information to any other person unless he is duly authorised to do so or does so in the course of and in accordance with his duties as the holder of a public office or when it is his duty in the interest of the State to communicate it."

So far so good, a person cannot communicate any official information, unless authorised to do so. So how can you be authorised?

"(4) In this section “duly authorised” means authorised by a Minister or State authority or by some person authorised in that behalf by a Minister or State authority."

Ah, "a Minister" can authorise it, not "the" Minister. Essentially, if Varadkar is covered by the Act, (and we will come to that in a minute), then he could authorise himself to issue it, it didn't have to be Harris.

Are Ministers covered by the OSA? A good question, and not clear.

"“public office” means an office or employment which is wholly remunerated out of the Central Fund or out of moneys provided by the Oireachtas, or an appointment to, or employment under, any commission, committee or tribunal set up by the Government or a Minister for the purposes of any inquiry, but does not include membership of either House of the Oireachtas."

They are certainly excluded from some elements of the Act, under this definition. Does that apply in full to all elements?

Finally, even if all of the above applies to Varadkar, that the document was confidential, that he is covered by the Act, etc. there is still one further saving clause in Section 4(1) where it states "when it is his duty in the interest of the State to communicate it." He was Taoiseach at the time, and if he believed it was in the interest of the State in securing a deal with doctors that he was justified in sharing a confidential document covered by the OSA, then there was no offence. Hard to believe that the courts would second-guess the Taoiseach on this point.

This will all be shown to be a fuss about nothing. I have gone over this before in this thread, and there was little rebuttal the last time. I would be interested in any basis for a different opinion. I also think that is why Pearse has backed down from SF allegations of criminality.

I've rebutted your arguments, including those above several times throughout the thread:

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The basis for another 'opinion' is being investigated by SIPO and the Gardai.

No-one is interested in your selective view of the legislation, don't confuse that with fear of rebutting you.

Varadkar has already confessed to wrongdoing, it remains to be seen if that has a criminal implication.

I see you are backing down from your previously expressed opinion.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

In my opinion he broke the law.

shatners bassoon wrote: »

I've rebutted your arguments, including those above several times throughout the thread:

'The Village's interpretation on the Act is accurate.

4.—(1) A person shall not communicate any official information to any other person unless he is duly authorised to do so or does so in the course of and in accordance with his duties as the holder of a public office or when it is his duty in the interest of the State to communicate it.

The definition of public office under the act excludes members of the Oireachtas but it certainly doesn't exclude them from liability under 4(1), in fact it precludes them from relying on the exception available to public office holders acting in accordance with their duties. For Leo to get off the hook here I think he will need to prove it was 'in his duty in the interest of the state' to release the document.'

'Varadkar hasn't addressed any of the exceptions under the act. If it's his position that he has the power to self-authorise the release of confidential documentation (which, let's be clear, would render the Taoiseach immune to any action under the Act, regardless of the nature of the breach provided it was authorised by the very person communicating the information) then he should state that clearly.

Finally, the executive absolutely does not decide what is in the best interests of the state as referred to in legislation.

What's your opinion on Leo claiming that the the Village were 'manifestly' wrong to suggest that the legislation applies to him?'

Varadkar has said he didn't break the law.

I have set out several ways of demonstrating that the OSA either did not cover him or allowed him to release the document. Only one of them needs to be correct in order for Varadkar to be cleared.

Ultimately, if Varadkar, as Taoiseach, cannot sanction the release of a document, it begs the question, who can?

In essence, that means the OSA doesn't apply to him as the ultimate arbiter on what is confidential and what can be released.

Finally, there is a contradiction between the two bits in bold. You state that Varadkar has said that the Village were manifestly wrong to say the OSA applied to him which appears to be the statement that you were looking for earlier in the post.

Floppybits wrote: »

Jaysus round and round we go with some people looking for an i missing a dot or a t missing a cross all just to save their chosen one. Even if a technicality like that does get him off between this and the Woulfe appointment he is damaged goods.

This is not about an i missing a dot, this is about the legal definition of confidentiality and the legal authorisation of the release of documents.

From the start, we have had politicians and posters screaming that he has broken the law. Most have backed down by now, but those that cling to it can't really point to the law that he has broken. Where and when they do, they acknowledge the possibility that there is an exception.