A Supreme Court judge has said the power of a modern tribunal of inquiry is truly awesome and the duration of some tribunals is appalling.
Mr Justice Adrian Hardiman also said that the expense of participation in a tribunal is nothing less than grotesque.
He made his comments in his judgment on a case relating to the Director of Corporate Enforcement's attempt to disqualify the directors of Bovale Developments, Michael and Thomas Bailey, from being directors of a company.
The Baileys had appealed to the Supreme Court against a High Court ruling that the Director was entitled to rely on an investigation by accountants PriceWaterhouseCoopers into the affairs of the company over two years. That appeal was dismissed by the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court also dismissed a cross appeal by the Director against the High Court's finding that reports by a tribunal of inquiry had no evidential value in disqualification proceedings and could only be used as a source to assist in finding other evidence.
In his judgment, Mr Justice Hardiman said a recent tribunal had ended after about 13 years and another seemed likely to exceed even this enormous total.
As a result, he said, the expense of the participation in a tribunal meant it was beyond the means even of individuals or corporations who would normally be considered rich.
Mr Justice Hardiman said that whether a body that has no legal effect is worth having in the first place is a question for the judgment of those who establish tribunals and not for the court.
He said tribunals had now taken to sitting for very long periods in private so that the material they gather is normally known only to themselves, except he said on these all too frequent occasions when portions of the material is leaked.
This accumulation of material in secret has on a number of occasions created major injustice where material damaging to the account of an accusing witness has been quite deliberately withheld from the parties whom he accuses.
He reiterated that justice is to be administered by judges in public, in courts established by the Constitution.
Mr Justice Hardiman said all the constitutional guarantees in relation to the administration of justice and fair procedures would be in vain if it were possible for the Government to set up a parallel process that would have all the consequences of criminal conviction other than actual imprisonment.
He said the decision of the Supreme Court in the 1992 decision Goodman v Hamilton provided the only conceivable basis for the constitutionality of a tribunal.
That decision found a tribunal is sterile of legal effect, its report is simply an opinion and devoid of legal consequences.
