The High Court has ordered the Garda Síochána Ombudsman Commission to discover documents about its handling of a second complaint against garda Padraic McEvoy, finding the records relevant and necessary for a fair hearing of his judicial review challenge.
The order covers documents relating to events and decisions between 9 January and 28 November 2013, when the Commission considered whether to admit the complaint. The court said the records could assist with issues including how the second complaint differed from an earlier complaint, why time was extended, the process behind the Commission’s decisions, and McEvoy’s claim of prejudice from reopening the matter.
The second complaint was made by Mary Lynch, who had earlier complained about the investigation of an assault on her by Gerry McGrath in 2007. The judgment records that she said new information came to her in October 2012, including an account from Sergeant Maurice McCabe of a recorded telephone conversation with McEvoy. Lynch alleged that McEvoy had lied about knowing who ordered McGrath’s release and that garda members had covered up mistakes. These are allegations described in the judgment, not findings by the court.
The Commission initially admitted five allegations in September 2013, then added a cover-up allegation in November. McEvoy challenged the admissibility decision and sought discovery of the Commission’s file. He argued, among other things, that the complaint was late, that he had been notified only after a delay, and that an earlier investigation and disciplinary process should have brought the matter to an end. The Commission said the new complaint relied on information not previously known to Lynch and was distinct from the first complaint.
The judgment addresses only McEvoy’s discovery application. It says the Commission could assert public-policy privilege over documents in its discovery affidavit, with any contested claim to be determined through the usual process. The court considered the Commission’s privilege objection premature at this stage and ordered discovery in the terms sought. It did not rule on the substantive judicial review grounds or determine whether the complaint should ultimately proceed.