The High Court refused a judicial review challenge to orders requiring three witnesses to produce medical records relating to an anonymised applicant for use in a UK murder retrial. The court held that the orders were permitted under the Criminal Justice (Mutual Assistance) Act 2008 and that the public interest could outweigh the applicant’s privacy rights.
The request came from UK authorities on 13 May 2016. It concerned a criminal trial against a UK citizen accused of murdering an Irish citizen whose body has not been found. The applicant had testified at an earlier trial, which was aborted for unrelated reasons, and was due to testify at the retrial. The judgment said the defence had suggested her evidence might not be entirely reliable and was interested in her medical records. The State accepted that the applicant had acted honourably throughout.
Three witnesses—a sister from a charitable organisation, the applicant’s general practitioner and an HSE patient services officer—were summoned to court with records relating to her. District Court Judge John O’Neill made orders for the first witness on 27 October 2016 and for the other two on 3 November. The applicant sought judicial review, and on 14 November the High Court granted an interim stay on transmitting the material while it heard the case on an expedited basis.
The applicant argued that the orders exceeded the 2008 Act and improperly interfered with her constitutional right to privacy. The court found that the Act’s restriction on compelling evidence applied by asking whether a witness in a criminal trial could be required to produce the information. It concluded that the three witnesses could have been required to produce documents in hypothetical Irish criminal proceedings, so the challenge on that ground failed.
On privacy, the court noted that the applicant had received notice of the intention to obtain confidential health information. It identified the public interest in international criminal justice cooperation and in the effective conduct of a prosecution under the law of the forum—in this case, the UK. It concluded that those interests could outweigh the applicant’s privacy rights and that the Minister’s position was reasonable and lawful.
The court refused the substantive relief. It continued the stay on transmission until close of business on 21 November 2016, after which it would be discharged unless the Court of Appeal continued it. There was no order as to costs. The judgment also restrained publication of the applicant’s identity and any medical information relating to her.