The High Court has refused to lift a stay on the criminal trial of an anonymised accused, Mr X, while a dispute continues over whether computer material may be sent to defence experts outside Ireland.
Mr X was awaiting trial in the [stated place] Circuit Court on allegations that he possessed 5,182 child pornography images and six movies of child pornography. He contests the allegations.
The dispute concerns a computer said to contain the material. Defence lawyers sought a bit-for-bit copy of its hard drive for examination by expert witnesses based outside the State. In May and June 2021, the Circuit Court directed that a copy be provided in a manner allowing it to leave Ireland.
The DPP objected. Garda concerns included the possible legal consequences of exporting the material and the loss of effective Irish control over it once abroad. The DPP then sought permission to bring judicial review proceedings challenging the Circuit Court orders.
On June 21, the High Court judge dealing with the leave application put the other parties on notice and stayed Mr X's trial pending determination of the judicial review proceedings.
Mr X applied to have that stay lifted. His side argued, among other things, that important information had not been sufficiently disclosed to the leave judge and that the continued stay delayed a trial which he wanted to proceed.
Mr Justice Max Barrett rejected that argument. He held that the DPP and her lawyers had fully met the stringent duty of good faith applying to an ex parte application. The leave judge had been given a proper grasp of the relevant facts, issues and law.
The ruling does not decide whether the Circuit Court was legally entitled to order the hard-drive disclosure. Nor does it decide the criminal case against Mr X. It preserves the position until the judicial review proceedings are resolved.
The court also proposed expressly staying the Circuit Court disclosure orders and correcting a drafting error in the existing stay so that it clearly refers to Mr X's trial.