The High Court has ordered the State respondents to swear an affidavit of discovery listing Garda notes about the seizure of a solicitor’s phone, in a judicial review arising from a search of a Dublin law firm and an ongoing money laundering investigation.
Mr Justice Barry O’Donnell’s ruling concerned discovery only. It did not decide whether the search warrant was lawful, whether the phone was seized under that warrant or a separate arrest power, or whether the applicants are entitled to the other reliefs they seek. The court listed the case for 13 December 2024 to hear submissions on the final form of order and costs.
The applicants are solicitor James Flynn and his firm, J.T. Flynn & Co. Solicitors. The proceedings followed a search of the firm’s offices on 4 March 2022 under a warrant issued the previous day. The first applicant was arrested and his mobile phone seized. The judgment says the Garda investigation concerns suspected money laundering and that no decision had been made by the Director of Public Prosecutions on charges at the time described.
The applicants seek, among other reliefs, to quash the warrant and challenge the law that permitted it, restrict the investigation and the examination of phone data, and obtain materials connected with the warrant and investigation. Those are claims in the underlying proceedings, not findings in this discovery ruling.
The judge refused discovery of categories A to C. They covered materials used to prepare the sworn information for the warrant, the Central Bank of Ireland’s referral to Gardaí, and forensic reports. He concluded those documents had not been shown to be relevant and necessary to decide the pleaded issues. In particular, he said the lawfulness of the warrant would be assessed by reference to the information presented to the District Court, which had been provided to the applicants in an unsworn version.
Category D sought contemporaneous notes from Garda members who attended the firm on 4 March 2022, including members of the search and arrest teams. The applicants say the notes may help establish which power was used to seize the phone. The respondents maintain it was seized by the arrest team under a separate power. The judge found this was a factual dispute relevant to issues about the phone data, and that the notes might corroborate either account.
The respondents said they would claim public interest privilege over the notes. The judge ordered an affidavit of discovery listing them, leaving any claim of privilege—and any dispute about inspection or production—to be addressed through the appropriate process. He also rejected the applicants’ argument that the respondents had breached their duty of candour.