The High Court has set aside a Circuit Court judge’s refusal to order disclosure of Garda Complaints Board material to a woman facing prosecution, and ordered the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) to provide relevant documents if the prosecution continues.
The judgment, delivered by Mr Justice Bryan McMahon on 31 July 2008, concerned a complaint arising from a public order incident at Ballyogan Crescent, Dublin, on 31 March 2003. The woman said she was assaulted by Garda Ian Gillen when she tried to intervene in an altercation between the garda and her daughter. Her daughter was arrested. The woman later complained to the Garda Complaints Board (GCB), which investigated and sent a report to the DPP. The DPP decided not to prosecute Garda Gillen.
Garda Gillen subsequently applied for summonses charging the woman with assault and violent disorder. Her prosecution eventually reached Dublin Circuit Criminal Court. She sought material generated by the GCB investigation from both the DPP and the Board. The Circuit Court judge refused to order disclosure after the DPP said it would not rely on the documents. The woman then sought judicial review, arguing that withholding the material risked an unfair trial.
The High Court held that the GCB investigation concerned the same incident and involved people who were also central to the prosecution. The material was relevant to the defence, the judge said, and could assist in challenging Garda Gillen’s credibility or lead to further inquiries. The DPP’s decision not to rely on the documents did not remove its disclosure obligation.
The judge also considered the Board’s confidentiality arguments and section 12 of the Garda Síochána (Complaints) Act 1986. He held that section 12 applied to people working within the Board and did not restrict the DPP’s disclosure obligations. Any confidentiality claim had to be weighed against the accused’s right to a fair trial.
The court said the trial judge should examine the documents and carry out that balancing exercise. The Circuit Court judge had not done so, relying instead on the DPP’s assurance that it would not use the material. The High Court reversed that order and directed that, if the DPP continues the prosecution, it furnish the woman with all documents it received from the GCB concerning her complaint about the incident. The court made no order against the GCB.