The High Court has ordered further redactions to a Garda report sought in a defamation case between Lynda Meegan and Times Newspapers Limited, trading as The Sunday Times.
In a supplemental judgment delivered on 10 December 2021, Mr Justice Meenan ruled that the court had jurisdiction to consider an application by the Garda Commissioner after an earlier judgment had directed redactions to the report. The application did not seek to change the legal principles in that judgment; it asked the court to apply them in light of additional information.
The report, dated 1 October 2014, was prepared for the Minister for Justice and concerned the provision of confidential information by a serving Garda member on dissident republicans. The Commissioner had objected to producing it, citing public interest in effective crime investigation, Garda methods and protecting informants.
In July 2021, the court said the defendant’s ability to defend the defamation proceedings and vindicate its reputation had to be balanced against the public interest in protecting informants and Garda investigations. It directed redactions to remove information that could potentially identify informants.
The Commissioner later sought to re-enter the matter, relying on an affidavit from Chief Superintendent Anthony Howard. He said the redactions ordered earlier were insufficient to safeguard Garda sources and intelligence-gathering methods. A memorandum gave further reasons for proposed redactions and expressed concern that people’s lives could be in danger.
The plaintiff had notice of the application but did not take part. Having considered the memorandum and applied the balancing test from the earlier judgment, Mr Justice Meenan accepted that further redactions should be made.
The court directed An Garda Síochána to make a copy of the report, as redacted by the court, available for inspection. It also ordered the defendant’s costs of the application, to be adjudicated if the parties could not agree. The court gave the parties liberty to apply. The supplemental judgment does not set out the report’s contents or specify the redactions.