The High Court has ordered An Garda Síochána to produce three records and a redacted part of a fourth in a civil claim brought by Lidia Wolinska, while upholding privilege over the remaining documents in dispute.
Mr Justice Conleth Bradley’s judgment concerns a discovery application in Wolinska’s damages action against the Garda Commissioner, the Director of Public Prosecutions and Garda Neil Carberry. The court weighed the plaintiff’s interest in pursuing her claim against public interest privilege and legal advice privilege claimed over records arising from the related criminal investigation and prosecution.
Wolinska alleges that she was assaulted by a doorman at O’Reilly’s Bar on Tara Street in Dublin in February 2011. She says Garda Carberry later told her that CCTV showed she had attacked the doorman and had fallen, rather than been assaulted. She disputes that account and alleges that she was threatened with prosecution if she pursued her complaint against the doorman. These are allegations set out in the judgment, not findings in this application.
The plaintiff’s prosecution was withdrawn by the DPP in or about April 2012 and struck out on 21 May 2012, according to the judgment. Wolinska’s civil claim includes an allegation of malicious prosecution. The application before Mr Justice Bradley was limited to challenging privilege over documents already scheduled in the defendants’ discovery affidavits; it did not determine the underlying claim.
The judge ordered production of a July 2011 report by Garda Carberry, a related report by Sergeant John Finucane, and an undated minute listing material sent to the Chief State Solicitor’s Office. He also ordered production of the remainder of an October 2011 email document after the email expressing Inspector Gerald Delmar’s views was removed. The specified personal addresses in the reports must be redacted. The defendants must make the redacted documents available to the judge first.
Privilege was upheld over the other disputed records, including communications containing DPP directions, Garda reports to the DPP, and a PULSE incident summary. The judge said disclosure of the protected material could inhibit communications between Gardaí and the DPP, and that the PULSE record would offer no material benefit to the plaintiff’s case.
The judgment proposed orders reflecting those rulings. At a further hearing on 3 July 2025, the parties agreed the redaction issues. The plaintiff was awarded the costs of the motion, with execution stayed until the substantive case is determined.