The High Court has allowed Katherine Boyle’s claim over the alleged disclosure of private information to a journalist to continue, after finding that she had established a prima facie case that the information came from a servant or agent of the Prison Service.
Mr Justice Barr made the ruling on 2 July 2015 during the trial of Boyle’s action against the Governor of St Patrick’s Institution, the Irish Prison Service, the Minister for Justice and Law Reform, Ireland and the Attorney General.
The case concerned a mobile phone found on Boyle in a part of the prison complex where phones were prohibited, and an alleged incident on 3 September 2008. Boyle argued that the investigation breached her right to fair procedures because she and her trade union representative were not given Officer Nolan’s statement or CCTV footage at the time. She said the material was only disclosed during the court proceedings in November 2014.
The defendants argued that Boyle knew the essential facts in 2008 and should have challenged the investigation through judicial review within the applicable time limits. The judge agreed. He found that she had enough information in or about September 2008 to bring a fairness challenge, and knew by March 2009 that the statements and recordings would not be provided. The court therefore directed that the investigation-procedure claim could not proceed, whether framed as negligence or breach of constitutional rights.
The separate disclosure claim concerned an Irish Daily Star article published on 9 September 2008. Boyle alleged that detailed information had been leaked to journalist Mr O’Toole and used to portray the prison’s security system favourably. The defendants disputed that anyone acting for them had supplied the information, arguing that the incident had been discussed by others and that the Press Office issued only a bland statement that did not identify Boyle.
The judge found that the article contained detailed information known to a relatively small number of people, including some employed by the defendants. He concluded that Boyle had established a prima facie case that the information came from a Prison Service servant or agent and refused the defendants’ application for a direction on that part of the claim.
That ruling was limited. The judge said he had not considered the defendants’ evidence, which had been heard while waiting for the plaintiff’s final witnesses. The prima facie finding was not a final decision on whether the disclosure occurred or whether the defendants were liable. He also deferred the question of vicarious liability until all the evidence had been heard.