The Supreme Court has criticised how Irish authorities handled an international evidence-gathering request concerning Jason Brady, finding that he should have been notified of a District Court hearing in the particular circumstances of the case.
The proceedings concerned the system of mutual assistance in criminal matters established under the European Convention and sections 51 to 55 of the Criminal Justice Act 1994. Under that procedure, a District Court judge acts not in the ordinary judicial role but as a specifically designated person tasked with obtaining and transferring the evidence identified in a foreign request.
Mrs Justice McGuinness agreed with the order proposed by the Chief Justice in a separate judgment delivered in the same case. She also agreed that no order was required concerning Brady’s medical records because counsel for the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform had given undertakings concerning them.
However, she criticised the implementation of the evidence-gathering procedure. The United Kingdom authorities had expressly requested that Brady be given an opportunity to obtain legal advice about the implications in both jurisdictions. The Irish authorities, she said, appeared never to have considered that request.
The court also examined whether the evidence was being sought purely for investigation. Mrs Justice McGuinness considered it reasonably possible that material collected could have been used as evidence in a future prosecution. She relied in part on submissions made at the earlier hearing about preserving a proper chain of evidence.
In those circumstances, and because Brady was a definite suspect, she concluded that he should have received notice of the hearing and an opportunity to obtain legal advice. She stressed that such notice would not necessarily be required in every international assistance case.
By the time of the Supreme Court judgment, neither Brady’s medical records nor statements from his relatives were to be transmitted to the UK authorities. The precise order concerning the remaining material is contained in the Chief Justice’s separate judgment rather than this concurring ruling.