Media silence over Niall Collins story

Larbre34 · 11-05-2023 11:29pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120584567#Comment_120584567

When disposals are proposed, either by request from a third party, or originating from the Council executive, they are put before the local area committees for discussion to see if there is any particular reason that it ought not to be disposed of, or if the local members have any other input, such as bringing forward any adverse consequences such a disposal might have on other people, property or projects.

So the correct interpretation of the minutes is; the executive informs the LEA they have had interest in this piece of public land. The executive (in the person of G Naughton, Senior Engineer) asks if there is any reason the members from the local area would object to the Council disposing of it by sale on the open market. The members of this meeting raise no such objection and nod it through on a floor motion so it can be recorded.

Now of course these things come before local area committees across the Country thousands of times every year. They are very routine. LACs know its not for them to approve and the executive knows it too. It is merely the dissemination of local information for Councillors to be aware of local matters.

If a Councillor or Councillors had raised an objection, that would have been noted by the executive and checked out for veracity before bringing the matter to the full County Council, as only there can land disposals be approved. And even then, it is the executive that manages the sale as a transparent process on the open market. They have to advertise the plot as being open for bids, which they did.

The whole statutory procedure is laid out in crystal clear detail under Part 16, Section 183 of the Local Government Act 2001.

hometruths · 11-05-2023 11:43pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120585803#Comment_120585803

Thanks, all makes perfect sense.

And given your knowledge of planning/development/councils/ Local Government Act 2001 etc, I'd be curious of your opinion on the following scenario:

If a councillor planned to build a medical centre, identified a suitable site for the centre, found out the council owned it, and then instructed their solicitor to contact the council expressing an interest in purchasing the site in order to build a medical centre

Is that the type of activity that would fall under the following declarable interest:

(a) any profession, business or occupation in which the person concerned is engaged or employed, whether on his or her own behalf or otherwise, and which relates to dealing in or developing land during the appropriate period;

bokale · 11-05-2023 11:55pm

Is it true they bought the land without a mortgage and managed without a return on that money for over ten years?

Larbre34 · 12-05-2023 12:06am

Yes, if a Councillor did that, it would necessitate a declaration.

But in this case, a Councillor didn't do anything of the sort. A spouse / common law partner of a Councillor or TD is entitled to carry out his or her distinct business dealings or professional services without encumberance of or association with his or her spouse's elected public office.

Dr Eimear O'Connor and business partner(s) inquired about the land through her/their solicitor. The then Councillor Niall Collins wasn't a partner or associate in that business arrangement in any way whatsoever.

He did say recently that it may have been better to recuse himself from the LEAC, but his view, then as now, that LEACs have no function in approving disposals of Council land, is correct.

And by the time the full County Council did approve the disposal, he was long gone, having being elected to the Dáil over four months prior.

That's the end of the story.

SIPO said so and whoever has asked the Gardaí to investigate, is simply wasting their resources on a vexatious grudge.

Game over, c'est fini, goodnight John Boy.

hometruths · 12-05-2023 12:14am

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120585885#Comment_120585885

I realise that a councillor did not do it.

I just wanted to check that I understood that section correctly - i.e that if a councillor did engage in that whole medical centre activity as described they would be bound by that obligation to declare.

That's been most helpful for my understanding. Thank you.

"SIPO said so?" Have they already said end of story? Didn't see that anywhere.

jmcc · 12-05-2023 12:34am

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120585885#Comment_120585885

This matter is now under investigation by SIPO and AGS. It is they who will determine what happened and decide whether further action is necessary.

Regards...jmcc

Annasopra · 12-05-2023 5:59am

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120585803#Comment_120585803

What I'm not clear on is

In order for the land to be advertised on the market did the County Council have to approve before or after the Bruff local meeting?

Or does it suffice for the Bruff area to agree and then it can be advertised on the market?

This has been a confusing issue

There has been claims

A The Bruff Area doesn't have the power to agree to advertise the land on the open market

B The Bruff Area can't sell the land

A and B have been asserted in this thread as the same thing and different things but they are different.

hometruths · 12-05-2023 8:35am

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120584431#Comment_120584431

Because, assuming the complaint is not time barred, they don't have a lot of leeway here based on prior findings.

In a previous ruling dealing with exactly the same issue - a breach of Section 177/not recusing - they found Dublin Councillor Oisin Quinn breached the Ethics Legislation - see attached

Quinn was the 1/6 owner with his siblings of a building on Mount St in Dublin. Prior to a meeting of DCC re a development plan that potentially affected that building he disclosed the interest and sought advice from suitably qualified individuals including the legal expert in DCC. The advice he received was that the interest was so remote and insignificant to the matters discussed that he did not need to recuse himself, so he participated in the meeting/vote.

SIPO found that he had contravened Section 177, and whilst acknowledging that it might have appeared harsh given his transparency and the advice he received, the advice he received was wrong, and they had no option but to find against him.

Quinn understandably felt hard done by, so much so that decision ended up being challenged in a Judicial Review in the High Court.

It all hinged on the question of how "remote and insignificant" was Quinns interest. Those at DCC he'd consulted in advance were convinced it was "remote and insignificant", SIPO understood their reasoning but concluded it was not remote or insignificant enough. The judge upheld SIPOs decision.

The importance of "remote or insignificant" is because of what is defined as a beneficial interest, or not as the case may be:

(3) A person shall not be regarded as having a beneficial interest which has to be disclosed under this Part where section 167 (3) is applicable or because of—

(a) an interest which is so remote or insignificant that it cannot be reasonably regarded as likely to influence a person in considering or discussing, or in voting on, any question with respect to the matter or in performing any function in relation to that matter,

SIPO have no choice but to apply the same is it remote or insignificant test to the Collins question.

So in a case where a councillor was transparent about his interest in a single building out of many thousands that were potentially affected by the issues discussed and got legal advice that he did not need to recuse, SIPO found against him.

That leaves them little choice to find against a councillor in a case were there was no transparency or disclosure, and the matter discussed in the meeting was specifically about the interest in question.

I think there is no other option for SIPO without raising questions about their own integrity etc which is obviously an even bigger can of worms.

Of course as far as Collins is concerned it makes little difference, by the time SIPO publish their findings, he'll be in opposition at best, banking his ministerial pension.

SIPO Investigation Report Councillor Oisín Quinn, Dublin City Council.pdf

Dav010 · 12-05-2023 8:41am

Dear God, will someone please explain the difference between being a co-owner of a property, and writing a letter expressing an interest in a property.

This has reached a new level of absurdity.

VinLieger · 12-05-2023 9:18am

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120585925#Comment_120585925

It is not under investigation by the gardai, accoprding to the ditch they are simply examining the allegations made by them. So the ditch rang the gardai and said hey we think this happened and the gardai said they would look into it as they do for any reported crimes, that is very different to being under investigation.

Hotblack Desiato · 12-05-2023 11:06am

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120584551#Comment_120584551

For the 1001st time, "being interested in" something is not at all the same thing as "having an interest in"

dasa29 · 12-05-2023 12:02pm

Ok everybody the following is from the Local Government Act 2001 (Revised)

**Offences (Part 15).**

181.—(1) (a) Subject to subsection (3), a person is guilty of an offence where he or she fails to comply with the requirements of section 171 or who, when claiming to comply with those requirements, gives particulars which are false or which to his or her knowledge are misleading in a material respect.

(b) Proceedings for an offence under this subsection shall not be instituted except by or with the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions.

(2) A person guilty of an offence under subsection (1) is liable—

(a) on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £1,500 or, at the discretion of the court, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or to both,

(b) on conviction on indictment, to a fine not exceeding £10,000 or, at the discretion of the court, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 2 years or to both.

(3) In any proceedings for an offence under subsection (1) it is a good defence for the defendant to prove that at the relevant time he or she believed in good faith, and upon reasonable grounds, that—

(a) the relevant particulars were true,

(b) there was no matter as regards which he or she was then required to make a declaration under section 171, or

(c) the matter in relation to which the offence is alleged was not one as regards which he or she was so required to make such declaration.

(4) (a) Subject to subsection (6), a person is guilty of an offence where he or she fails to comply with any of the requirements of section 177, 178 or 179 or who, when claiming to comply with those requirements, gives particulars which are false or which to his or her knowledge are misleading in a material respect.

(b) Proceedings for an offence under this subsection shall not be instituted except by or with the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions.

(5) A person guilty of an offence under subsection (4) is liable—

(a) on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £1,500 or, at the discretion of the court, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or to both,

(b) on conviction on indictment, to a fine not exceeding £10,000 or, at the discretion of the court, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 2 years or to both.

(6) In any proceedings for an offence under subsection (4) it is a good defence for the defendant to prove that at the time of the alleged offence he or she did not have actual knowledge and had no reason to believe that a matter in which, or in relation to which, he or she or a connected person had a beneficial interest had arisen or had come before the local authority concerned, or was being considered by it or by a committee or joint body of the local authority, as may be appropriate, or that the beneficial interest to which the alleged offence relates was one in relation to which a requirement of section 177, 178 or 179 applied.

(7) Summary proceedings for an offence under this Part may be brought by the local authority concerned, subject to subsection (1)(b) or (4)(b).

(8) Notwithstanding section 10(4) of the Petty Sessions (Ireland) Act, 1851, summary proceedings for an offence under this Part may be commenced—

(a) at any time within 12 months from the date on which the offence was committed,

(b) at any time within 6 months from the date on which evidence sufficient, in the opinion of the local authority by whom the proceedings are initiated, to justify the proceedings, comes to such authority’s knowledge,

whichever is the later, but no such proceedings shall be initiated later than 5 years from the date on which the offence concerned was committed.

Annotations:

Editorial Notes:

E308

A fine of £1,500 converted (1.01.1999) to €1,904.60. This translates into a class C fine, not exceeding €2,500, as provided (4.01.2011) by Fines Act 2010 (8/2010), ss. 3, 6(2) and table ref. no. 1, S.I. No. 662 of 2010

E309

A fine of £10,000 converted (1.01.1999) to €12,697.38.

72sheep · 12-05-2023 12:54pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120585885#Comment_120585885

"Dr Eimear O'Connor and business partner(s) inquired about the land through her/their solicitor. The then Councillor Niall Collins wasn't a partner or associate in that business arrangement in any way whatsoever" - other than Dr Eimear O'Connor and Councillor Niall Collins slept in the same bed, had been married for nearly a decade and had prior history with joint "adventures" in rural planning. Apart from that though, correct, there's no association in any way whatsoever.

But sher listen we've already established here that these people are saints, LOL!!

Podge_irl · 12-05-2023 1:36pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120587139#Comment_120587139

A: He didn't commit a crime

B: So you're saying he's literally the personification of Jesus?

Why do people do this?

Larbre34 · 12-05-2023 1:55pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120587139#Comment_120587139

All you're engaged in here, is wishful thinking.

You want something to be wrongdoing, because you have a political/idealogical/personal dislike of Collins/FF/FFG/The Gubbernment, but in reality you're just spoofing and have no real idea of actual obligations in relation to this stuff.

You're going to be quite disappointed when this all washes through.

Sono Topolino · 12-05-2023 1:56pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120587139#Comment_120587139

Under section 176 (2) LGA, a Councillor is deemed to have a "beneficial interest" if they have actual knowledge of a declarable interest (within the meaning of section 175) of a spouse. Therefore, yes, any "declarable interest" that Dr. Eimear O'Connor may have had would have been a relevant consideration . However, the important question is whether Dr. Eimear O'Connor had a "declarable interest" and we have no evidence that she did.

The assertion that she was "engaged or employed" in a "profession, business or occupation [...] which relates to dealing in or developing land during the appropriate period" is a pure farce. Dr. O'Connor is... well... a doctor! The fact that she envisaged developing an adjacent parcel of land for use in her medical practice does not mean that property development became her that her "profession, business or occupation". That would be absurd.

As has been said by me and many others including @Podge_irl multiple times, words used in statute have a particular meaning. One of the first things you learn studying law is that you should never read your own values and biases into statute. It is obvious that a lot of people here really dislike Niall Collins and desperately want him to be guilty of an offence - but you cannot simply twist the law to say whatever you want like this.

hometruths · 12-05-2023 2:33pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120587394#Comment_120587394

Not according to @Larbre34 and he/she is a former council planner.

They told us that if it had been a councillor that wished to buy the land to develop a medical centre it would have been a declarable interest.

Why then would a connected person carrying on exactly the same activity not be a declarable interest under Section 176(2)?

Hotblack Desiato · 12-05-2023 2:49pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120587298#Comment_120587298

Yeah, apparently if you're not calling for him to be hung, drawn and quartered, even though you've described him as a buffoon and a gombeen you'd never vote for in a fit, it makes you an "FFG shill" 🙄

This sort of crap is all over the Jounal and Twitter and it's juvenile beyond belief.

sydthebeat · 12-05-2023 2:52pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120587596#Comment_120587596

because the connected person in this case does not have a declarable interest in accordance with section 175.

section 175 deals with professionals who work in the area of land development ie individual surveyors, engineers, developers, architects etc or similar professionals who work for companies who develop land.

Having a wish to develop a piece of land does not make you a professional developer / engineer / surveyor / architect / etc

its laid out very clearly:

(a) any profession, business or occupation in which the person concerned is engaged or employed, whether on his or her own behalf or otherwise, and which relates to dealing in or developing land during the appropriate period;

(b) any other remunerated trade, profession, employment, vocation, or other occupation of the person concerned held by that person during the appropriate period;

(c) any estate or interest the person concerned has (subject to section 167 (3)) in land including the case where the person concerned, or any nominee of his or her, is a member of a company or other body which has an estate or interest in land and without prejudice to the foregoing an interest in land shall be deemed to include—

(i) the interest of the person in any contract entered into by him or her for the purchase or sale of land, whether or not a deposit or part payment has been made under the contract, and

(ii) the interest of the person in—

(I) any option held by him or her to purchase or sell land, whether or not any consideration has been paid for it, or

(II) land in respect of which such an option has been exercised by the person but which has not yet been conveyed to the person;

(d) any business of dealing in or developing land carried on during the appropriate period by a company or other body of which the person concerned, or any nominee of the person, is a member;

can you see the trend in all these conditions?

hometruths · 12-05-2023 3:21pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120587717#Comment_120587717

The trend is very clear. These are wide ranging descriptions designed to cover any and all commercial activity relating to land.

There is a very good reason for that, as spelt out in the Code of Conduct:

4.9 This is more relevant where the nature of a councillor's occupation, profession or business is such that it interfaces to a significant degree with local authority functions (e.g. related to land development or property transactions). There is a special onus in such councillors to clearly demonstrate the separation between personal business interests and their role as an elected member of the local authority

The idea that Niall Collins would be obliged to declare an interest if it was he who wished to buy the land but not declare the same if it was his wife who wished to buy the land is nuts.

Larbre34 · 12-05-2023 4:03pm

It's your notion boss, so go nuts if you will.

Collins doesn't own his wife. She is a private individual and businessperson in her own right. Any change to the rules to have him adopt some sort of agency over her business dealings would be regressive, restrictive, a privacy violation and would open up possibilities for coercive control and undue interference in free conduct of legitimate business.

I don't know what century you're living in that you think the code of conduct ought to apply to his wife's private business interests, but you're destined to remain very disappointed in that regard.

Larbre34 · 12-05-2023 4:06pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120587596#Comment_120587596

Indeed I did, but I also detailed that there is no connection between them for the purpose of the LGA and any codes of conduct derived therefrom.

It's very clear that 'connected person' in respect of Section 176, means a business, professional or employment relationship.

Refer again to my post above.

hometruths · 12-05-2023 4:10pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120588052#Comment_120588052

Well at least we seem to agree that a councillor would be obliged to avoid this conflict concerning their own business interests, if not their spouses.

But which section of the Local Government Act is it that would compel a councillor to disclose if they wished to purchase land from the council to build a medical centre?

hometruths · 12-05-2023 4:21pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120588069#Comment_120588069

I only saw this after your second post, I didn't see you'd sort of answered my question here. We both agree on the section that compels the councillor to disclose this sort of business interest.

To claim he did nothing illegal because his wife is not a connected person is one of the biggest straws I've seen clutched yet.

Overheal · 12-05-2023 5:33pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120588286#Comment_120588286

None of what you've cited the past few days mentioned "connected person?"

You've focused on Section 175.

https://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2001/act/37/section/166/enacted/en/html

175 doesn't mention "connected person" at all.

Sono Topolino · 12-05-2023 6:24pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120588372#Comment_120588372

I've already addressed this here:

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120587394#Comment_120587394

If Dr. O'Connor was "engaged or employed" in a "profession, business or occupation [...] which relates to dealing in or developing land during the appropriate period" that would have placed him in legal jeopardy. However, as I and many others including @sydthebeat have pointed out, she was not. Therefore, sections 175 and 176(2) LCGA are not relevant.

Is it too much to ask people to read the prior posts on this page? Quite a few of us have analysed the legislation and taken the time to explain what it means. It's quite disheartening to see people ask the same point over and over again.

hometruths · 12-05-2023 7:17pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120588550#Comment_120588550

Well at least you appear to agree that his wife is a connected person.

For the benefit of anybody else who hasn't kept up, I'm stating that 176(2) and 175 defines Collin's wife's interest in purchasing the land as a material beneficial interest and thus Collins acted illegally in not disclosing and recusing.

Depending on which poster you are reading, we have two defences of Niall Collins currently active in the thread:

1) his wife is engaged in a business which relates to dealing or developing land, but NC is in the clear because his wife is not a connected person. Because she's a doctor.

2) his wife is not engaged in a business which relates to dealing or developing land, because his wife is a doctor, so NC is in the clear. But she is a connected person.

Despite the totally contradictory interpretation that gives rise to these two positions, both advocates are agreed on one thing (apart from NC's innocence): the law is crystal clear, this is established beyond doubt, and anybody who questions their version is simply unable to understand English.

Dav010 · 12-05-2023 7:36pm

At this stage the absurdity has stretched to 7 pages.

sydthebeat · 12-05-2023 7:52pm

Someone still doesn't know what a beneficial interest is ...

The horse has died from dehydration at this stage.

I'm out, it's only one conspiracy theory poster here who seems determined to ride the merry-go-round without taking on board anything that is explained to them.

Have at it lads.

Annasopra · 13-05-2023 8:46am

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120586218#Comment_120586218

You think there is no other option. That doesn't mean there is no other option.

Media silence over Niall Collins story

Comments

Ok everybody the following is from the Local Government Act 2001 (Revised)

Offences (Part 15).

(b) Proceedings for an offence under this subsection shall not be instituted except by or with the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions.

(b) Proceedings for an offence under this subsection shall not be instituted except by or with the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions.

(7) Summary proceedings for an offence under this Part may be brought by the local authority concerned, subject to subsection (1)(b) or (4)(b).

(8) Notwithstanding section 10(4) of the Petty Sessions (Ireland) Act, 1851, summary proceedings for an offence under this Part may be commenced—

(a) at any time within 12 months from the date on which the offence was committed,

(b) at any time within 6 months from the date on which evidence sufficient, in the opinion of the local authority by whom the proceedings are initiated, to justify the proceedings, comes to such authority’s knowledge,

whichever is the later, but no such proceedings shall be initiated later than 5 years from the date on which the offence concerned was committed.

**Offences (Part 15).**