The High Court has dismissed G. M.’s application to prohibit his prosecution for possession of stolen property, finding that section 28 of the Residential Institutions Redress Act 2002 did not prevent him from giving the evidence he said was important to his defence.
Mr Justice Noonan gave judgment on 24 March 2015 in judicial review proceedings. The underlying prosecution, which was adjourned pending the review, concerns an allegation that G. M. possessed stolen goods at premises in Naas, Co Kildare. The alleged property included Coca-Cola products and handling equipment with a stated total value of €15,932. The charge and the prosecution account recited in the judgment are allegations; the High Court did not determine guilt.
The prosecution alleges that Gardaí found two Coca-Cola-branded lorries on Dublin Road, Naas, in December 2010 and later searched an industrial estate premises, where they found pallets of soft drinks, toys and food. The judgment says G. M. admitted he was the premises’ lessee and had received a delivery of soft drinks, which he believed to be legitimate but short-dated. He intended to plead not guilty and wanted to rely at trial on information arising from his dealings with the Residential Institutions Redress Board.
His counsel argued that disclosure was barred by section 28 and that the resulting restriction would make a fair trial impossible. The Director of Public Prosecutions disputed that the section applied to information about an award received by G. M. and argued that he had not shown a real, unavoidable risk of an unfair trial.
The judge held that section 28(1)’s restriction applies to the Board, the Review Committee and people performing functions under the Act. An applicant for a redress award was not, in the judge’s view, performing such a function. Section 28(6) still applied: information about an applicant’s own award could be disclosed so long as it did not identify another person, a relevant person or an institution.
The judge added that, even if the evidence were restricted, G. M. had not established a real risk of an unfair trial that could not be addressed by the trial judge’s rulings or directions. The connection between a redress award and the possession charge was not immediately apparent and appeared potentially tangential, though the judge did not rule out that it could be relevant and admissible.
The court dismissed the judicial review application. It did not decide the criminal charge or order that the prosecution be terminated.