The High Court has refused Liam Campbell’s and Brendan McGuigan’s appeals against ministerial certificates withholding records they had requested under the Freedom of Information Act.
The applications concerned records held by the Minister for Justice relating to the men, including material about information-sharing, interception and surveillance. The Minister certified the requested records as exempt under sections 23 and 24 of the 1997–2003 Act. The certificates identified those statutory provisions but did not give a more detailed account of the reasons.
Both men were subject to European arrest warrants issued by Lithuania in connection with alleged offences. Campbell’s Irish warrant had been withdrawn after his arrest in Northern Ireland; the surrender application was then being dealt with there. McGuigan remained before the High Court on a surrender application, which had yet to be heard. The judgment records that the Lithuanian process concerning McGuigan was at an investigative stage, with no decision yet made to prosecute him.
The applicants argued that the certificates gave inadequate reasons, that records might disclose unlawful investigations or breaches of their rights, and that any information already shared with Lithuania should not remain confidential. They said access was needed to challenge their surrender and prepare for any proceedings abroad. The Minister argued that the claims of unlawful searches or information-sharing were speculative and that the certificates met the statutory requirements.
The court said the applications were appeals on points of law, not reviews of the merits of the Minister’s decisions. It held that the Act required the certificates to specify the relevant exemption provisions, but did not require the Minister to explain in the certificates why those provisions applied. More detail, the judge said, could itself undermine the purpose of withholding sensitive records.
The judgment also found that the applicants had not produced sufficient evidence of unlawful searches or interception to invalidate the certificates for failing to address the exception in section 23(3). The court said disclosure to Lithuania under mutual assistance arrangements would not, by itself, remove the records’ protection under the FOI legislation.
The court dismissed both appeals and refused to set aside either certificate. It did not decide the surrender applications or determine whether the allegations about the gathering or sharing of information were true. The judgment noted that concerns about the fairness of proceedings in Lithuania could be raised in the surrender process.