The High Court has ordered the State defendants and the Courts Service to disclose documents in a civil case brought by Kevin Tracey, while refusing or limiting other parts of his discovery request.
Mr Justice Robert Eagar’s judgment, delivered on 20 April 2018, dealt with Mr Tracey’s application for discovery under a motion issued on 12 July 2017. The court was deciding what documents had to be disclosed at this procedural stage; it did not determine the merits of the underlying claim.
Mr Tracey’s affidavit described the case as arising from an alleged malicious prosecution following an incident at the Courts Service offices in Áras Uí Dhálaigh on 6 July 2006. The judgment records that the prosecution was struck out in the District Court on 9 August 2007. Those are background matters recounted in the application, not findings in this discovery ruling.
For the State defendants, the court refused discovery of statements taken in contemplation of litigation, finding them protected by litigation privilege. It also refused documents explaining the decision to withdraw the prosecution, finding that category attracted public interest privilege. The court refused a file sent to the Director of Public Prosecutions, citing privilege and issue estoppel, and rejected requests it considered too broad, irrelevant or unrelated to the claim, including requests concerning video footage storage procedures.
The State defendants agreed to disclose or identify the absence of documents in several other categories. The court directed discovery in the State categories numbered 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 9, 11, 12, 13, 14 and 16, as outlined in their correspondence.
The Courts Service had agreed to discovery in multiple categories. The court directed disclosure in categories 1 to 13 of its response dated 19 January 2018. It also directed discovery of category 1 from Mr Tracey’s letter of 11 January 2010, and categories 6 and 7 as outlined by the Courts Service. Some requested material may already have been destroyed; the judgment says that would be addressed in the Courts Service’s affidavit of discovery.
The court directed that named individuals prepare affidavits of discovery for the State defendants and the Courts Service. The judgment does not state the contents of any documents subsequently disclosed.