The High Court refused a discovery motion in judicial review proceedings brought by retired Sergeant Shane Devlin over the Minister for Justice’s refusal of compensation for an injury sustained while on prisoner escort duty.
Mr Justice Max Barrett delivered the judgment on 21 February 2018. The ruling concerned only whether documents sought from the Minister should be disclosed for the judicial review. It did not decide whether Devlin’s injury was “maliciously inflicted” or whether he was entitled to compensation.
Devlin was injured on 19 July 2013 while, it appears, seeking to restrain a prisoner at Virginia Courthouse. He applied for compensation under the Garda Síochána (Compensation) Acts 1941 and 1945. In July 2016, the Minister refused the application on the basis that the injury had not been maliciously inflicted. The High Court granted Devlin leave to bring judicial review proceedings in October 2016.
In February 2017, Devlin’s solicitors sought voluntary discovery of the decision-maker’s file, including working notes, internal communications, materials consulted and advice. They argued that the decision-maker needed to learn the incident’s facts and circumstances, and questioned how that could be done if Garda statements were not supplied. The State refused the request, saying the reasons did not show that discovery was relevant or necessary and that there was no policy directive barring Garda statements.
The State provided an index showing that several Garda statements had been relied on. Departmental guidelines exhibited in an affidavit said Garda reports were required for the recommending and decision officers. They also stated that Garda policy was not to release official statements and reports to solicitors without a court order. The Minister separately averred that he had not adopted a policy of refusing Garda evidence statements when making decisions.
Barrett said the facts of the incident were not disputed in the judicial review. The question was whether those facts met the statutory test of an injury “maliciously inflicted”. He explained that discovery may be needed where affidavits disclose a clear factual dispute that must be resolved, or where there is prima facie evidence that a relevant document was wrongly included or omitted from the material before the decision-maker. He found neither circumstance present.
The court treated the issue as one of law: the proper meaning of “maliciously inflicted” in the 1945 Act. Because the requested documents were not necessary or relevant to resolving that question, discovery was not proportionate. The motion, made on 10 July 2017, was refused.