The High Court adjourned a motion by Peter Secansky for leave to deliver interrogatories in his civil claim against the State and others over his arrest, detention and prosecution for rape. The court did not decide whether to grant leave. It gave him time to ask the defendants whether relevant discovery documents could be introduced without formal proof.
Mr Justice Niamh Hyland said the plaintiff’s application concerned 52 proposed questions for the Commissioner of An Garda Síochána and eight for the Director of Public Prosecutions. The questions sought factual admissions about the investigation of a 2007 complaint by the complainant and the 2009 allegation against the plaintiff, as well as the handling of bail applications.
The judge said the plaintiff’s supporting affidavit relied on general statements that the questions were necessary, without explaining why they were needed in this case. The affidavit also did not identify gaps in his knowledge or address the extensive discovery already provided. Under Order 31 of the Rules of the Superior Courts, the person seeking interrogatories must show that they are necessary to dispose fairly of the case or save costs.
The defendants argued that written questions should not replace oral evidence and cross-examination, and that the plaintiff had not shown a need for them. The judge found the questions relevant and generally answerable by yes or no. She said the discovery appeared to contain the answers to most questions, while the plaintiff’s own legal team had attended the bail hearings and could address questions about their conduct.
The plaintiff argued that discovery documents would not prove themselves at trial and that interrogatory answers could avoid the cost and time of calling witnesses to prove them. The judge accepted that discovered documents may require formal proof, but said the plaintiff could subpoena witnesses to prove them or ask the defendants to agree to their admission without formal proof. She also referred to the possibility of an agreement that documents could be treated as prima facie evidence of their contents.
Because the plaintiff had not tried those options, the judge said she could not yet assess whether interrogatories would save costs. She adjourned the motion to allow him to take steps to establish whether the defendants would agree to the documents being introduced without interrogatories. If the motion is re-entered and the plaintiff wishes to proceed, he must file a supplemental affidavit identifying who is to answer each question.
The underlying civil claim alleges wrongful conduct connected with the rape charge, including malicious prosecution and false imprisonment. Those allegations were not determined in this ruling.