The High Court has ordered the State defendants to disclose some information previously redacted from records in a civil action brought by Philip Smyth, while upholding privilege over other material, including prosecution directions and records concerning third parties.
Mr Justice McDermott delivered the ruling on 22 June 2018 after inspecting documents covered by earlier discovery orders. The application concerned public interest privilege and legal professional privilege, not whether Smyth’s claims were true. The court did not decide the underlying allegations or order a new investigation.
Smyth’s action, issued in 2003, concerns two matters. He alleges that false information led gardaí to search Sachs Hotel in Dublin and the home of Brenda Flood in 1988, and that the Commissioner of An Garda Síochána failed to establish the source. The defendants deny the alleged wrongdoing and dispute that the nominated informant could not have supplied the information.
Smyth also alleges that anonymous calls made to London police between 1992 and 1996 contained damaging claims about him and his brother, Paul Smyth, then a senior garda officer. He says the calls were made from telephone lines associated with Hugh Tunney and Caroline Devine. The judgment recounts that separate litigation found Devine had made calls and that Crofter Properties Ltd. was liable for her actions. The defendants deny failing to investigate the calls.
The court allowed disclosure of specified redactions in several records about the 1992–94 calls, including information identifying relevant telephone numbers in Ireland, call dates, times and durations, and parts of reports. It ordered that certain names and other information be disclosed in records concerning a later garda investigation into an allegation of perjury by Devine. The court allowed some redactions to remain, including the number used to receive calls in the English police operation and the name of an English police officer.
It upheld privilege over other records, including directions and reasons from the Director of Public Prosecutions, correspondence created to obtain legal advice in anticipation of litigation, and material about investigations involving third parties. The judge said the plaintiff already had substantial documentation and that disclosure of the protected material would not advance his case. The ruling determined which records or portions could be inspected; the judgment does not resolve the civil claim.