The District Court has refused Patrick Cullen’s application for further disclosure before his summary trial on a charge of harassing Hinda Bloom and Peter Kelly between 14 April 2017 and 6 July 2019.
In a determination delivered on 14 April 2021, Judge Brian O’Shea said the prosecution had met its disclosure duty within the practical and reasonable limits applying to a summary trial. The court ruled that the remaining material sought went beyond the essential evidence grounding the charge. It did not decide Cullen’s guilt or the harassment allegation.
The application followed a series of requests made by the defence from February 2021. They included material concerning the complainants’ Facebook posts, devices, internet connections and CCTV, as well as complaints made to gardaí and records relating to other witnesses. Cullen’s solicitor said the requests were needed for a fair trial and to show that the allegations were vexatious or malicious. A letter from the defence also said Cullen viewed a land dispute as central to the complaints and alleged that Bloom had taken remedial action after he complained about her to Dublin City Council. Those were the defence position and allegations, not findings by the court.
The prosecution said some requested items were irrelevant to the summary case, involved third parties, or did not exist. It had undertaken to inquire into details of complaints Bloom made against Cullen in the previous five years, so the judge said that item did not require a determination.
By the hearing, the defence had confirmed that a request for certain CCTV footage and a voice recording was no longer in issue. The judgment records that the defence had received witness and garda statements, a custody record, the interview memo and exhibits, photographs introduced by Cullen, CCTV used in the investigation, and the recording sought by the defence. The prosecution had also undertaken to provide statements from the member in charge, the gaoler and the garda who downloaded the CCTV already disclosed.
Judge O’Shea said criminal proceedings do not provide for civil-style discovery. The prosecution must disclose evidence on which it will rely and relevant material that may assist the defence or harm the prosecution, but the judge said disclosure in a summary trial has limits. He found that Cullen knew the substance of the charge and had received the essential evidence. The application for the remaining items was refused.