The High Court has ordered limited discovery in a judicial review brought by Leonid Popovici and Anna Andreeva over refugee appeal decisions and procedures. The substantive judicial review remains pending; the court’s ruling addressed only what documents the respondents must disclose in that case.
The applicants alleged general bias in the findings of the first respondent and in the Refugee Appeals Tribunal’s case-assignment procedures. They also complained about how the first respondent conducted their appeal hearing. The respondents did not contest the applicants’ application for leave to bring judicial review, which was granted on 9 February 2005. The judge said the respondents’ concession meant there were substantial grounds for the claim to be tried; he did not determine whether the allegations were established.
Mr Justice de Valera said discovery should help ensure the court hearing the judicial review had the full facts, but found the applicants’ requests too extensive. He rejected the request in paragraph (i) of the notice of motion as irrelevant to the judicial review and a “fishing expedition”.
He allowed discovery under paragraph (ii)(i), if relevant statistics had already been compiled and were available. Any records sought under paragraph (ii)(iii) were also discoverable if they existed. The judge said respondents were not required to compile statistics or create lists for the applicants. He also allowed discovery of documents about the assignment of cases to Tribunal members, both generally and in relation to the applicants, under paragraphs (iii)(i) and (iii)(ii).
The court considered any audio visual recording or transcript of the applicants’ hearing an appropriate subject for discovery, if one existed. The judge directed the respondents to make discovery by affidavit in the form provided for by the rules. The disclosure covers existing documents and may include objections to production; it does not require the creation or extraction of new statistics or tables.
The judgment also excluded requests for information the judge found was already in the public domain or had not been compiled by the Tribunal. The ruling did not decide the underlying judicial review or whether the applicants’ bias allegations were true.