A Supreme Court judge has raised significant fair-procedure concerns over the handling in Ireland of a British request for evidence concerning Jason Brady following a fatal incident in Birmingham.
The appeal arose from a December 2001 request by the Crown Prosecution Service in the West Midlands under international mutual-assistance arrangements. British authorities sought assistance concerning an incident in which a man who had confronted a person leaving a Birmingham college with property was later struck by a vehicle and died.
Irish authorities subsequently arranged a hearing under section 51 of the Criminal Justice Act 1994 before District Judge Gerard Haughton. Brady was not notified of that hearing, although the original British request expressly stated that he should have an opportunity to obtain legal advice.
Witnesses summoned included a prison doctor, who produced Brady's medical records, and members of Brady's family. An order was also purportedly made concerning property held by gardaí. The High Court later quashed that order, and no appeal was taken against that part of its decision.
Mr Justice Hardiman held that the District Court judge was acting under section 51 as a specially designated person rather than exercising ordinary District Court judicial jurisdiction. His powers were limited to receiving evidence falling within the foreign request.
Hardiman J said Brady's complete medical records and mobile phone were outside the scope of that request. He expressed "grave disquiet" that private medical records had been handed to State authorities for possible transfer abroad without notice to Brady or the protection of a judicial order.
He considered that fair procedures would ordinarily require notice where evidence was being obtained in circumstances capable of affecting the person concerned, absent exceptional concerns such as destruction of evidence.
However, the Minister later undertook not to transmit the medical records, Brady's relatives had given no evidence, and the challenged section 51 order had already been quashed. Hardiman J therefore agreed with the disposition proposed by the Chief Justice, while stressing the need for greater care in future mutual-assistance proceedings.