Judgment: 2001-01-30 · Court archive

Supreme Court orders DPP letter disclosed in Thomas Hannigan prosecution challenge

Supreme Court · [2001] IESC 10

Who, what, where, when and why

Who
  • Thomas Hannigan
  • Director of Public Prosecutions
  • Mr Justice Hardiman
What

Supreme Court orders DPP letter disclosed in Thomas Hannigan prosecution challenge

Where

Places mentioned in the report

  • Supreme Court
  • District Court
When

Judgment:

Other dates in the report
  • 23 June 1995

    Hannigan had been charged in September 1996 with sexually assaulting a male person in an incident alleged to have occurred on 23 June 1995. He later began judicial review proceedings challenging aspects of the prosecution process.

  • 29 May 1996

    During discovery in those judicial review proceedings, the DPP listed documents but objected to producing some of them on grounds including privilege and public interest immunity. By the time the dispute reached the Supreme Court, Hannigan sought production of only one additional document: a letter from the DPP received on 29 May 1996 giving directions on prosecution and venue.

Why

Reasons reported in the judgment

Mr Justice Hardiman held that this use of the letter was significant. The DPP had not merely acknowledged its existence but had relied on a summary of its contents for the purposes of the litigation.

The Supreme Court has ordered the Director of Public Prosecutions to produce a letter concerning the proposed handling of a sexual assault prosecution against Thomas Hannigan.

Hannigan had been charged in September 1996 with sexually assaulting a male person in an incident alleged to have occurred on 23 June 1995. He later began judicial review proceedings challenging aspects of the prosecution process.

One of his complaints concerned whether the case should be dealt with summarily in the District Court or on indictment. Hannigan alleged that the DPP had acted oppressively by making consent to summary disposal conditional on a guilty plea. He also alleged a broader pattern of unfairness and abuse of process.

During discovery in those judicial review proceedings, the DPP listed documents but objected to producing some of them on grounds including privilege and public interest immunity. By the time the dispute reached the Supreme Court, Hannigan sought production of only one additional document: a letter from the DPP received on 29 May 1996 giving directions on prosecution and venue.

A Garda superintendent had already referred to that letter in an affidavit filed on behalf of the DPP. The affidavit said the Director intended the case to proceed on indictment, while indicating that a guilty plea might allow the matter to be dealt with in the District Court.

Mr Justice Hardiman held that this use of the letter was significant. The DPP had not merely acknowledged its existence but had relied on a summary of its contents for the purposes of the litigation.

The court found that privileged material can lose that protection when it is deployed in court proceedings. Fairness required Hannigan to see the actual document so he could assess whether it supported the account presented by the DPP.

The Supreme Court therefore allowed the appeal and ordered the letter to be produced for inspection. The ruling concerned that specific document and did not establish that all correspondence between the DPP and Gardaí must generally be disclosed.

Read the original court judgment

Something looks wrong?

Highlight the relevant passage or flag this article for review. Review requests do not immediately change the report.

Email a correction request

Request a review