The High Court has ordered a limited process for seeking disclosure of identities in a civil case concerning alleged historical sexual abuse of V, who was a schoolchild, by X, identified in the judgment as a priest and schoolteacher.
The judgment, delivered by Mr Justice Max Barrett on 17 May 2019, concerns discovery before trial. Documentation already provided to the plaintiff included redacted details about other people connected with allegations or complaints concerning X. The plaintiff sought some of those details.
The court said information about people who had complained to gardaí or X’s religious order, or had brought civil proceedings against X, was relevant and necessary for the fair disposal of the case. It noted that some of those people might be called to give evidence at trial. Their privacy, however, required safeguards before their identities could be shared.
The order directs the defendants’ solicitors to contact solicitors on record for people in those categories and ask whether they would agree to their details being disclosed to the plaintiff’s solicitors, so they might assist the plaintiff. Details may be disclosed to the plaintiff’s solicitors where the person agrees. If issues arise, the parties may apply to the court again.
The court declined to order disclosure of the identities of alleged victims whose names had surfaced through admissions or third-party allegations, but who had not themselves taken the specified steps to come forward. It said this could be reconsidered if the contact process did not produce much cooperation.
For other individuals against whom allegations appeared in the documents, the court considered the material at most tangentially relevant. It directed that the relevant people and details could be linked in anonymised form, limiting interference with privacy without impairing a fair hearing.
The court also considered section 60 of the Data Protection Act 2018 and the GDPR. It concluded that the form of order it contemplated raised no issue under section 60’s necessity and proportionality requirements. The judgment’s conclusion was to make the order described in its first part; it did not decide the underlying abuse allegations.