The High Court has concluded a motion for further and better discovery in proceedings brought by Kevin Tracey and Karen Tracey, ruling that the defendants had disclosed all relevant documents. Mr Justice Eagar said the case should be ready for trial once witnesses had been summoned for the next jury list, scheduled to begin in early October. The judgment does not decide the underlying claims.
The proceedings arise from Mr Tracey’s allegation that State parties maliciously prosecuted him in connection with road traffic offences in 1999, despite his having produced his driving licence and insurance documents within the required ten days. He also alleged that the events led to a fine, an attempted licence endorsement, a one-year driving disqualification and a one-month prison sentence, and included wrongful arrest, false imprisonment, trespass and forced entry to his home. These are allegations described in the judgment, not findings made on this motion.
The motion concerned earlier discovery orders made by the Master in 2009 and 2010. The plaintiffs sought further disclosure from State defendants and Courts Service defendants. The State defendants said no notebook entries existed for the specified date, that the committal warrant had already been provided, and that documents concerning the decision to issue summonses were initially protected by privilege. They later waived that privilege for the category at issue. An affidavit described how a form recording Mr Tracey’s production of his documents was not returned, and how an inquiry to Rathmines Garda Station wrongly indicated that he had not produced them. A summons application form was then sent to the Courts Service. The form recording production could not be located; the judgment records the court’s view that this was a matter of evidence rather than discovery.
For the Courts Service, an affidavit said some records, including legal diaries and declarations of service, were no longer available, with certain records having been destroyed under a retention circular. The court noted that some requested material had been disclosed and that there was no dispute about other categories. It rejected the request for further discovery, finding the disclosed material sufficient and concluding that an order for documents that could not be found would not be appropriate.
The court upheld the State’s privilege claim over the category 2 documents in its discovery order, while also recording the State defendants’ subsequent waiver and the explanatory material provided. It concluded that all relevant documentation had been discovered and that the discovery motion was complete. The ruling addressed disclosure only; it did not determine liability or the merits of the plaintiffs’ claims.