The High Court has quashed a District Court order requiring disclosure of 29 categories of material in a speeding prosecution and remitted the request for a full relevancy hearing.
In a judgment delivered on 9 December 2008, Mr Justice McMahon ruled on a judicial review brought by the Director of Public Prosecutions against Judge Geoffrey Browne. Michael Mullane was the notice party. He had been charged with driving above the 100 km/h limit on a public road at Lismeegan, Aughamore, Co Mayo, on 18 March 2006.
Mullane’s solicitor sought material about the handheld computers used by gardaí and the processing of fixed-charge notices. The requests included software and training information, transmission logs and the names of personnel involved. In an affidavit, the solicitor argued that the new electronic process could affect the fairness of the trial and alleged that information about it was being concealed. The State disputed several claims and said some requests were irrelevant or would impose substantial demands on Garda resources.
On 19 September 2007, Judge Browne ordered disclosure of all 29 categories without giving reasons or finding that the categories were relevant, according to the High Court judgment. The State solicitor said he had asked for a relevancy hearing and offered to call witnesses, but Judge Browne declined. The District Court also awarded €500 in costs to Mullane.
Mr Justice McMahon said disclosure in summary proceedings is limited to relevant material in the prosecution’s possession and must be necessary to ensure a fair trial. He found that Mullane had not established a factual basis for the wide-ranging request or shown specifically how withholding the material would create a risk of an unfair trial. The judge also noted that the handheld device recorded information but did not measure the car’s speed; a separate instrument detected speed.
The High Court said the District Court should have examined the relevance of the requested categories, including through further explanation or expert evidence where needed. It also found no evidence to support the allegation of a concerted effort to conceal a flawed procedure.
The court granted certiorari, quashing the disclosure order and the €500 costs award. It remitted the matter to Judge Browne for a full relevancy hearing to determine which, if any, of the requested items should be disclosed. The ruling did not decide that no material should be disclosed, or determine the speeding charge.