The District Court ordered a hospital report concerning interviews with a child to be provided to An Garda Síochána (AGS) for its criminal investigation, with strict conditions on access and handling. It also directed that both reports be given to the mother’s legal team and the child’s Guardian Ad Litem (GAL), subject to safeguards protecting confidential information.
The Child and Family Agency (CFA) applied under section 47 of the Child Care Act 1991 to lift the in camera rule for two reports prepared for pending child-care proceedings. AGS sought the second report to assist its investigation of alleged sexual abuse. The mother’s legal team sought both reports to prepare for the care-order hearing and contest the allegations, which the mother denied.
The court heard that AGS had conducted six electronically recorded interviews with the child and that a hospital specialist unit had also interviewed the child and the child’s foster mother. The unit’s report drew on the Garda recordings. A Detective Inspector said several arrests had been made, computer equipment was being examined and a file was being prepared for the Director of Public Prosecutions. He estimated investigators had about 90% of the evidence and sought the report to identify any further leads.
The judge noted that reports of arrests had already made the mother and child identifiable in their immediate community, with adverse consequences for the mother. The court also found that the memorandum of understanding between the health service and the DPP on disclosure requests had not been followed: AGS had instead obtained a search warrant against the Agency. The judge said joint interviews could have taken place but had not.
The judge concluded that both reports were highly relevant to the mother in the care proceedings and that the second report was also relevant to the Garda investigation. The order did not determine whether the alleged abuse occurred. The judge said the sexual-abuse issue would form part of the Agency’s case at the care-order hearing.
AGS was ordered to receive the hospital report seven days before disclosure to the mother’s legal adviser. It must keep the report secure, make no further copies, restrict it to the Detective Inspector’s personal custody, and record who accesses it and when. It must return the report to the CFA when the case concludes. Further court approval, on notice to the GAL and mother, is required before either report can be shared with the DPP’s office in connection with a prosecution of a person who is not a party to the child-care proceedings.
The mother’s legal team was to receive both reports eight days after the order; the GAL was also to receive both on similar terms. The order restricted onward access and required secure storage and access records. The judgment also stated that reporting must not identify the child or any party to the child-care proceedings.