The High Court has ruled on disputed discovery in John Barrett’s civil action against the Garda Commissioner and the Minister for Justice, ordering production of documents in several categories while refusing access to records from an ongoing Garda criminal investigation.
In a judgment delivered electronically on 25 May 2022, Mr Justice Barr directed discovery covering categories 2 and 4 for the period from 1 July 2015 to 31 December 2018. The court chose those dates because Barrett’s concerns about financial irregularities at the Garda College in Templemore were said to have first been made known to the then Commissioner in July 2015, and the criminal investigation was directed in December 2018.
The court also widened category 6. The documents must cover Barrett’s applications for an indemnity for legal costs relating to the McCabe, Keogh and O’Brien modules of the Disclosures Tribunal. The defendants must provide the names of witnesses who applied for indemnities and identify Garda members, sworn and unsworn, who were granted or refused them. The court declined to order production of all documents relating to other witnesses’ applications, citing privacy concerns.
For category 8, the defendants must disclose documents relating to a 24 October 2015 letter about Barrett. The court refused discovery of a separate 13 October letter about another person and documents concerning any disciplinary proceedings against the letter’s author, finding those matters irrelevant to the pleaded issues. The court ordered category 9 discovery as sought, including documents supplied to senior counsel before an informal inquiry that later became a formal disciplinary investigation.
The court refused category 11, which sought records relating to the PULSE system and criminal investigations. It said disclosure during an ongoing investigation could impede police work, assist people under investigation or endanger cooperating witnesses. It also found the records sought were not relevant or necessary to the issues for trial. The court noted that the civil action did not concern whether Barrett gave false or misleading evidence to the tribunal.
The judgment concerned discovery only. It did not determine the disputed allegations in the civil action. Five categories had already been agreed by the parties; in five others, the defendants had agreed to some discovery but disputed its scope. The judgment directed the parties to provide an agreed draft order within two weeks, identify the deponents for discovery affidavits and agree a timetable. Brief written submissions on costs could also be made. Either party retained the right to appeal after the final order was perfected.