The High Court has dismissed Kevin Tracey’s application to revisit discovery and inspection issues and to have material published by the Courts Service deleted from records potentially available to jurors. The court directed that the case proceed to the next civil jury call-over list.
In a ruling delivered on 30 May 2022, Ms Justice Reynolds said discovery and inspection had been dealt with in a 2019 ruling. The court had found that Tracey had an opportunity to inspect documents but had not sought to do so, and sent the case forward for a jury call-over to fix a trial date. He did not appeal that ruling.
Tracey later complained about deficiencies in discovery affidavits furnished by the State defendants and the Courts Service. A further judgment in October 2019 noted that he was dissatisfied with those affidavits but had not sought further and better discovery. Justice Reynolds said the discovery issues had been comprehensively dealt with and could not be relitigated at this stage.
The ruling said a jury had subsequently been sought to hear the proceedings, but the trial did not proceed because there were not enough jurors available. Tracey did not then apply to adjourn or raise the alleged outstanding discovery and inspection issues, the court said.
Tracey also sought an order requiring the deletion and expungement of anything published by a defendant, particularly the Courts Service, from records that might be available to jurors before or during trial. He argued that public access to discovery judgments could prejudice a fair trial. Justice Reynolds rejected that argument, saying publication of judgments serves openness and transparency and that a jury would principally decide the factual issues in dispute, rather than pre-trial issues already determined.
The court dismissed the application in its entirety and refused the requested reliefs. It said costs should follow the event, but allowed that Tracey could contact the registrar to be heard on costs, in which case the court would sit again to deal with that issue. The judgment records that the parties had already resolved by consent his request for the defendants’ intended witness list.