The District Court has allowed Garda C access to the digital audio record of evidence given by G, the father of child K, at an emergency care order hearing. The disclosure is limited to the Garda’s investigation of an alleged assault of K, and does not authorize publication or use for another purpose.
The Child and Family Agency (CFA) applied for an emergency care order on 4 January 2017, after Gardaí had removed K to safety two days earlier under section 12 of the Child Care Act 1991. The court made an order that day, lasting until 11 January.
Garda C later applied under Order 12B of the District Court Rules for access to evidence from the hearing. He said he was investigating an alleged assault of K and believed G’s evidence included admissions that might assist his enquiries. Garda C said he had been in court only to give his own evidence and was not present when G testified. The judgment records that the source of his information about G’s evidence was not disclosed during the application.
Both parents and K’s guardian ad litem opposed disclosure. The CFA took no position. The judge said the court had power to relax the in camera rule where the interests of justice required it. He considered K’s welfare, the public interest in investigating serious alleged crime, and the importance of candour in child care proceedings. He rejected the guardian’s submission that disclosure should be permitted only in exceptional circumstances or as a last resort. The judge also said the court did not need to assess whether the information was necessary to the Garda investigation, provided it was potentially relevant and connected to the alleged offence.
The judge found that G had given evidence after being warned about the privilege against self-incrimination. The evidence appeared prima facie frank and candid, might be regarded as self-incriminating, and had not been tested to any degree. The judge did not decide whether the statements were in fact self-incriminating or whether they would be admissible in any later criminal trial.
On balance, the court allowed disclosure for the investigation. The material ordered released was the recording of the preliminary to G’s evidence, including the warning, and all of G’s evidence—about three pages of transcript. The judge said it remained subject to the in camera rule except to the extent of the order, and that the order did not permit publication or other use. The form of the order and any application for a stay remained to be addressed; the judge also invited submissions on whether the material should be disclosed to the parties or guardian ad litem.