The High Court has granted Guardian News & Media Ltd’s applications for non-party discovery from the Department of Transport and An Garda Síochána in a defamation action brought by Pat O’Mahony, Leonard Hyde and Labardie Fisher Ltd. The court said the documents were relevant and necessary to the newspaper’s plea that the challenged article was true.
The action concerns a November 2015 article about migrant workers in the Irish fishing industry, including Filipino fisherman Demie Omol’s account of working aboard the Labardie Fisher. The plaintiffs deny the article’s allegations and claim they are defamatory. The judgment records allegations about Mr Omol’s recruitment, working conditions and illness; it does not determine whether those allegations are true.
The newspaper sought documents from the Department relating to the vessel, Mr Omol and other crew, including Marine Survey Office records and communications with other State bodies. Its requests to An Garda Síochána included material concerning Mr Omol and other crew, statements and files held by named officers, a trafficking assessment, a file sent to the Director of Public Prosecutions, and reports concerning fishermen in the Irish fleet.
The applications followed an earlier discovery order against the plaintiffs. After further exchanges and affidavits, the newspaper accepted the plaintiffs’ account that they had no further relevant documents; the court was satisfied that discovery between the parties was complete. It then considered the applications against the State bodies.
The court found that the newspaper had some evidence to support its plea of truth and that the requested categories were connected to the issues raised by that plea. It accepted that the State bodies were the only remaining sources for the documents sought. The availability of Mr Omol or other witnesses did not, in the court’s view, remove the need for discovery.
The judge also rejected objections that the requests were too broad or oppressive, finding that the categories had been narrowed sufficiently and were detailed enough to identify relevant material. The court did not rule that every requested document must ultimately be disclosed without qualification. It held that possible public interest privilege claims were not certain to succeed, particularly since the criminal proceedings against the plaintiffs in 2017 had concluded unsuccessfully. Confidentiality alone was not a ground to refuse discovery; sensitive information or sources could be addressed through redactions when affidavits of documents were prepared.
The court said it would grant the orders sought and discuss their final form with counsel. The ruling concerns discovery only. It does not decide liability in the defamation action or the truth of the article’s claims.