THE PUBLIC ETHICS watchdog Sipo has for a second time ruled out a formal investigation into Leo Varadkar leaking a GP contract while Taoiseach.

In April 2019, Varadkar sent a draft copy of an agreement between the Government and the Irish Medical Organisation to Dr Maitiú Ó Tuathail, who was at the time the head of a rival GP group.

A file regarding the leak was sent to the Director of Public Prosecutions, which in 2022 ruled against issuing criminal charges.

Meanwhile, between 1 November 2020 and 14 February 2021, the Standards in Public Office Commission (Sipo) received four complaints under the Ethics Acts regarding the incident – one of the complaints was later withdrawn.

The complainants, which included People Before Profit TD Paul Murphy, contended that the agreement was not in the public domain at the relevant time on bases including that the agreement had been marked “confidential” and that Varadkar had acted contrary to the Ethics Acts in disclosing the agreement.

In November 2022, Varadkar was informed by Sipo that it had decided not to request an inquiry officer to carry out a preliminary inquiry and not to carry out an investigation into the matter.

However, in February 2023, Paul Murphy initiated judicial review proceedings in respect of Sipo’s decision not to investigate Varadkar.

Murphy said that Sipo did not adequately explain the reason why it chose not to investigate the matter further.

In June 2024, the High Court ruled in favour of Murphy, with Justice Barry O’Donnell stating that Sipo had “not explained with sufficient clarity how or why the Commission concluded that its remit did not extend to investigating the matters that were the subject of the complaint”.

As a result, Sipo’s earlier decision was quashed and the matter was again referred to the Sipo for reconsideration.

In a ruling yesterday, Sipo again decided against carrying out a formal investigation.

In explaining its decision, Sipo made reference to the evidence from the Department of Health, which stated: “It is a reasonable expectation that drafts may be shared throughout the process with key stakeholders from all parties involved.”

Varadkar’s position was that he disclosed the contract to Dr Ó Tuathail in his role as president of the now-defunct National Association of General Practitioners (NAGP), and not because he was a friend.

He further claimed that he shared the contract with Ó Tuathail to avoid a repeat of a previous campaign by the NAGP against a Government-backed contract and that a Government commitment had been made to engage and inform the NAGP.

Sipo added that the evidence provided to it did not show an “ulterior purpose” for sharing the contract on behalf of Varadkar.

Murphy said he was “very disappointed that SIPO has refused yet again to investigate Leo Varadkar’s leaking”.

“This is despite the High Court ruling which quashed their last refusal,” he added.

People Before Profit TD Paul Murphy Alamy Stock Photo Alamy Stock Photo

Murphy said the “reasoning Sipo put forward is simply not credible”.

“They claim there is not prima facie evidence that the document he leaked is confidential, despite it being stamped with the word confidential.”

In its ruling, Sipo noted that the document was watermarked with “confidential – not for circulation”.

Sipo said that in the Commissioners’ experience, “a watermark on a draft document is generally indicative of the status of a document at a point in time, but its relevance may change as time passes”.

“Moreover, the relevance of the term ‘confidential’ cannot be clearly or exclusively determined from the watermark itself,” said Sipo in the ruling.

It called for “clear standards and classifications” to “assist political office holders and other public servants to understand what is expected of them when terms such as ‘confidential’ are used in relation to a document”.

In any case, Varadkar contended that Ó Tuathail, in his capacity as President of the NAGP, was a “legitimate stakeholder” and that disclosure to him would not be contrary to the nature and extent of the “confidentiality” that was in force at the time.

As a result, Sipo said there was not “sufficient evidence to establish a prima facie case” that the disclosure was “contrary to the nature and extent of the confidentiality subsisting at the time of disclosure”.

Meanwhile, Murphy said he will discuss his options with his legal team and make a decision in the new year on whether to take another High Court case.