The High Court ordered the Garda Commissioner to provide Keith Blythe with the names and addresses of people for whom the Commissioner considers there is prima facie evidence of involvement in publishing allegations about him. The information must also specify which parts of the relevant material each person was concerned in publishing.
Mr Justice Richard Humphreys made the order on 18 September 2019 in a case in which Blythe sought information to identify potential defendants in proposed defamation proceedings. The court treated the disclosure motion as the trial of the action because no other relief remained. The judgment is reported as [2019] IEHC 854.
The judge said Blythe had shown a strong case that unknown people had defamed him and that the Commissioner held information needed to institute proceedings. He rejected the Commissioner’s argument that a clear and unambiguous demonstration of wrongdoing was required, stating that the relevant threshold was a prima facie demonstration of wrongful activity. The court’s order was limited to information necessary to launch proceedings; further material needed to advance a case could be pursued through third-party discovery later.
The Commissioner opposed disclosure, arguing, among other things, that it could prejudice Garda disciplinary processes, that the proposed claim was speculative and that the plaintiff had not exhausted other ways of finding the publishers. The judge rejected those objections. He noted that the Commissioner had investigated the publications for disciplinary purposes and that Blythe had spent time writing letters seeking information. The judge also said the limitation period was about to expire.
After further submissions, the court set 1pm on 19 September 2019 as the deadline for disclosure, based on the plaintiff’s submission that 20 September 2018 was the earliest possible publication date. The information was to be provided by letter, subject to hearing counsel.
The Commissioner applied for a stay. The judge refused it, finding that the balance of justice favoured Blythe because delay could jeopardise his opportunity to start proceedings within the limitation period. The court also ordered the Commissioner to pay the plaintiff’s costs of the proceedings, including the motion. It made no order as to the costs of providing the disclosure.