Judgment: 2019-04-05 · Court archive

High Court rules on discovery request in 2008 proceedings over prosecutions

The court said State defendants would disclose specified prosecution and Garda records, while declining to order disclosure of correspondence between Gardaí and the DPP.

High Court · [2019] IEHC 279

Who, what, where, when and why

Who
  • Kevin Tracey
  • Karen Tracey (Plaintiff)
  • The Director of Public Prosecutions
  • The Courts Service
What

The court said State defendants would disclose specified prosecution and Garda records, while declining to order disclosure of correspondence between Gardaí and the DPP.

Where

Places mentioned in the report

  • Ballyfermot Garda Station
  • Blanchardstown Garda Station
  • Ballyfermot
  • Blanchardstown
When

Judgment:

Other dates in the report
  • 23 November 2005; 23 June 2005

    The State defendants, including the Courts Service, said they would discover specified documents. These included applications and decisions to issue summonses, charge sheets and declarations of service relating to the four alleged offences from 23 November 2005. Their proposed disclosure also covered records about a separate charge of driving without reasonable consideration on 23 June 2005, as well as particular Garda logs, notebook entries and a Ballyfermot Garda Station record-book entry confirming production of Tracey’s licence and insurance.

Why

Reasons reported in the judgment

The High Court has ruled on a discovery application in proceedings brought by Kevin Tracey and Karen Tracey, directing that discovery be made of specified records held by the State defendants. The judgment does not determine the plaintiffs’ underlying claims.

The High Court has ruled on a discovery application in proceedings brought by Kevin Tracey and Karen Tracey, directing that discovery be made of specified records held by the State defendants. The judgment does not determine the plaintiffs’ underlying claims.

The plaintiffs issued a plenary summons in December 2008 seeking damages over alleged malicious prosecution and other alleged wrongdoing. The judgment says the case concerned prosecutions of Kevin Tracey for driving without insurance or a licence and for failing to produce the relevant documents. The judgment does not decide whether those allegations were proved.

Tracey, who represented himself at the discovery application, sought records including documents relating to the issuing of summonses, charge sheets, declarations of service, Garda station logs and notebook entries. He also sought records concerning the production of his licence and insurance, and the prosecution file sent to the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP).

The State defendants, including the Courts Service, said they would discover specified documents. These included applications and decisions to issue summonses, charge sheets and declarations of service relating to the four alleged offences from 23 November 2005. Their proposed disclosure also covered records about a separate charge of driving without reasonable consideration on 23 June 2005, as well as particular Garda logs, notebook entries and a Ballyfermot Garda Station record-book entry confirming production of Tracey’s licence and insurance.

The court said correspondence between Gardaí and the DPP was privileged and refused to direct discovery of it. It also said there was no need to order production of a Garda PULSE record from Blanchardstown Garda Station because the State defendants were disclosing the Ballyfermot record-book entry concerning the licence and insurance.

The judgment states that the court would make an order in due course and direct discovery by a person to be named by the State defendants to swear the affidavit of discovery. It does not set out a final order in the text provided.

Read the original court judgment

Something looks wrong?

Highlight the relevant passage or flag this article for review. Review requests do not immediately change the report.

Email a correction request

Request a review