The High Court refused Joseph Murtagh’s application for further disclosure in his judicial review proceedings, finding that he had not produced evidence that the State respondents breached their disclosure obligations.
Mr Murtagh’s underlying judicial review challenges a District Court judge’s handling of prosecutions arising from summonses. He alleges that the judge should have recused himself because Mr Murtagh was a former client and they parted on bad terms. He also objects to the judge’s statement that he had set a hearing before another judge. The High Court stressed that the substantive judicial review had not yet been heard and made no finding on those allegations.
The application before Mr Justice Max Barrett concerned the respondents’ opposition papers. They had filed a statement of opposition and two affidavits: one from a District Court clerk who appeared to have sat with the judge on relevant dates, and one from the secretary to the President of the District Court about how an alternative judge was assigned. Mr Murtagh sought supplementary affidavits and supporting documents, or alternatively an order striking out the statement of opposition. His lawyers had asked the State’s solicitors for further material, arguing that the papers lacked documentary support.
The court considered the disclosure principles in the Supreme Court’s decision in O’Neill v Governor of Castlerea Prison and discussed authorities from other jurisdictions. It concluded that Irish judicial review respondents must disclose relevant material in their possession, subject to privilege, and that public authorities have a high duty to help the court with full and accurate explanations of relevant facts. The court described this as a duty of candour, while noting there is no general duty of disclosure.
But the judge said Mr Murtagh had offered no evidence that relevant documents existed and had been withheld, or that the respondents otherwise breached their obligations. The complaint was, the court said, a generalised claim that unspecified documents might exist. The court also found that the respondents had complied with the relevant Rules of the Superior Courts on affidavits and judicial review statements of opposition.
The court refused all reliefs sought in the application. That decision addresses the disclosure motion only; the substantive judicial review remains to be heard at a future stage.