The High Court has ordered the Commissioner of An Garda Síochána to provide specified documents in a case brought by John Matthew Berry over photographs taken at Kilmainham Garda Station. The court also proposed orders requiring the Commissioner to provide particulars, with costs reserved for further submissions.
Mr Berry’s 2019 proceedings seek damages for defamation, alleged breaches of privacy and data protection rights, and other claims. The second defendant, Noel Shannon, was added after a Norwich Pharmacal order required disclosure of his name. The judgment records that Mr Shannon, a civilian engaged to carry out maintenance or repair work at the station, took photographs in restricted areas, including of noticeboards containing information about Garda investigations. Some resulting images appeared online and included an image of Mr Berry and related comments. The Commissioner’s investigation led to Mr Shannon’s successful prosecution.
The motions decided by Ms Justice Nuala Jackson concerned discovery and particulars and involved Mr Berry and the Commissioner. The judge said the requested discovery was focused and relevant to disputed issues, including what was on the noticeboards, Mr Shannon’s access to them, publication of the material and the Commissioner’s data breach notification position. She limited the first category to documents about the relevant bulletin boards from 1 January to 1 May 2019. The other categories cover records of Mr Shannon’s presence and access to the station, publication and republication, factual support for specified defences, and documents relating to the Commissioner’s denial of a failure to meet data breach notification requirements.
The judge found that discovery could include factual material supporting pleas of truth or substantial truth and factual matters relevant to qualified privilege and honest opinion. She did not require discovery of every document related to those latter defences; the order is limited to documentation supporting the pleaded factual matters.
On particulars, the judge said Mr Berry should be told in broad outline what case he would have to meet at trial. She proposed two orders as drafted, each excluding the requested words “(including date and location)”. The judgment does not set out the underlying particulars requests in full.
The court had not yet made final orders on the motions when the judgment concluded. Justice Jackson said she would hear any submissions on the changes to the proposed orders and costs. The judgment does not determine the merits of Mr Berry’s claims or the Commissioner’s defences.