User:AdeAyo97/sandbox

Ardagh v Maguire [2002] IESC 21 is an Irish Supreme Court case which restricted the Legislator's (the Oireachtas) power to conduct investigations to enquire into matters of great public interests, where is plainly impugned on an individual's constitutional right to their good name. "[A]s one of the great organs of government" the Oireachtas derives it's authority to appoint committees "to take evidence upon any bill, estimate or matter, and to report its opinion for the information and assistance of the Dáil” under the respective Standing Orders 64 and 78 However these investigatory powers are subject to judicial review, if the findings of a public inquiry breach an individual's constitutional right, the publication of it will be restrained.

History
On March 8th 2001 a sub-committee of the Joint Committee on Equality, Defence and Woman Rights was created by both houses of the Oireachtas to inquire into the fatal shooting of 27 year-old John Carthy, by the Garda Emergency Response Unit at Abbeylera, Longford on 20th April 2000.

The shooting amassed widespread public speculation, concerning the failed attempts of the Gardaí to peacefully defuse the two-day siege on the 19th - 20th April, that ensued outside Mr Carthy's home. On 19th April, the Gardaí were called to Mr Carthy's home after it was reported that he used his licensed shotgun to fire two shots outside the window of his home. The Gun laws in the republic of Ireland were at that time and still are restrictive in nature. It was common for inhabitants of rural villages to own and possess a gun to protect their properties from trespassers.An individual licensed to hold or own a small firearm under the 1925 -2009 Firearm act, must have satisfied the requisite conditions to be granted a certificate. Following the incident an internal Garda investigation was conducted by then Chief Superintendent T. A. Culligan. A 117 page report was furnished on the 28th June, 2000. It extensively reported, amongst other things, the events that lead to John being shot four times.The completed report was then reported to the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform.

InIn hearing the appeal from the High court the supreme court held that here was no implied and explicit power given to members of the Oireachtas to conduct an inquiry of the type

What belongs here:
This section includes facts of the dispute, its history in lower courts, and relevant historical/political context. Subsections may include history, facts of the case, procedural history or lower courts (or even a subsection for each lower court, appropriately titled), and petition (for certiorari). You can cite the judgement when you are summarising the facts of the case.

Oral arguments can go at the end of this section if you choose the "Opinion of the Court" style (see full explanation below).

Opinion of the Court
This section should contain a summary of the Court's opinion as well as any important events of note that occurred during the case. Use this section for excerpts from the decision and precedents cited.

Subsections or a paragraph for concurring and dissenting opinions can also be added as appropriate. Should be in the form of "Concurrences" and "Dissents" for section headers.

Subsequent developments
This is an optional section. Whether your article has it or not depends on the sources you find on Westlaw IE.Cases that clarify/reverse; relevant developments for the parties or dispute (outcome of remand/"Nixon turned over his tapes..."), social effects. Be sure to include citations in support of any claim you make here about the case's subsequent impact.

Refer forward to subsequent cases citing this decision as precedent.