The High Court has ordered limited disclosure of Garda records in a wrongful-death action brought by Grainne Nic Gibb, ruling that an operational plan, a duty roster and a report to the Director of Public Prosecutions were relevant to her claim but should be redacted in specified respects.
Ms Justice Iseult O’Malley delivered the judgment on 16 May 2013. The plaintiff sought inspection of documents over which the State defendants had claimed public interest privilege. The underlying action seeks damages on behalf of the plaintiff and the deceased’s statutory dependants, alleging that State servants or agents wrongfully caused Ronan MacLochlainn’s death. Those allegations were not determined in this motion.
MacLochlainn was shot dead by Garda members on 1 May 1998, in the immediate aftermath of a failed attempted armed robbery of a Securicor van near Ashford, County Wicklow, the judgment said. Five other men were arrested, charged and convicted in connection with the matter.
The disputed documents were an operational plan, Garda duty rosters and a 106-page covering report by Detective Chief Superintendent Sean Camon. The defendants argued that disclosure of the first two could reveal Garda methods and harm public safety. They described the report as confidential intelligence and analysis, and also argued it was not relevant because it analysed material already disclosed.
The judge inspected the documents and applied the public-interest balancing principles set out in earlier cases. She found the operational plan relevant and said that, apart from limited redactions, its disclosure presented no discernible risk to Garda operations given the age of the events. The headings “Communications” and “Call signs”, and Garda members’ telephone numbers, must be redacted. Where the three anonymised Garda members appeared, the designations X, Y and Z could be used instead of their names.
The duty roster was also relevant. Entries unrelated to the case must be excluded, and names of individuals listed in connection with “VIP escorts” must be redacted. The three Garda members’ names may likewise be replaced by X, Y and Z.
The judge noted that Camon’s report post-dated the event and appeared to belong under a different discovery category. She found it generally confidential but not necessarily privileged, and said that disclosure of witness statements had made most of the report no longer confidential as against the plaintiff. The report was relevant, but paragraphs 43 to 47, which communicated general intelligence to the DPP, must be redacted because that information was not relevant and its confidentiality served the public interest. Any references to the three anonymised Garda members could use X, Y and Z.
The judgment addressed inspection of these documents and specified redactions. It did not decide liability in the underlying action.