The High Court dismissed two judicial review applications brought by men who argued they should have been shown evidence before Garda interviews. Mr Justice Noonan ruled on 9 May 2017 that the applications sought advance guidance on issues that belonged before a trial court, and that the applicants had not shown a concrete prejudice that the declarations could remedy.
The cases were heard together because they raised the same question: whether arrested people were entitled to see evidence Gardaí proposed to put to them in interview. Solicitor Michael Finucane requested evidence for both clients, relying on EU Directive 2012/13/EU. Gardaí declined to provide it in advance and gave an outline of the evidence instead.
Liam Maloney was arrested at 7.05am on 17 September 2015 in connection with an alleged assault causing serious harm. The alleged offence arose from the unlawful killing of Vincent Maher in January 2014. Maloney’s solicitor sought witness statements, footage and other material before questioning. Maloney made no substantive answers during three interviews over 17 and 18 September, and was released on 18 September. No charge had been brought against him arising from those circumstances when the judgment was delivered.
Jordan Ennis, who was 18 at the time, was arrested at Coolock Garda Station on 23 September 2015 in connection with an alleged assault causing harm. He also declined to answer questions in interview. He was released later that day. In May 2016, he was charged with violent disorder, assault causing harm and producing an article during a dispute. A trial on indictment was directed, and he was sent forward for trial in September 2016 after receiving the Book of Evidence.
The applicants argued that advance disclosure could have helped them consider the questions and make statements in their favour. The respondents said the detention claims were moot because both men had been released, and that the requests for declarations lacked a demonstrated practical benefit.
The judge held that complaints about detention were moot and noted that no damages were sought. He also found no demonstrated prejudice from the interviews: both men had legal representation, could consult privately with their solicitor, and chose not to answer questions. He dismissed the argument that they had been denied the chance to make a considered exculpatory statement, noting they could have done so after consulting their solicitor during an interview.
The court did not rule on the substantive meaning of the Directive or establish a general disclosure rule for Garda interviews. It dismissed the applications, holding that judicial review was not appropriate for advance rulings on hypothetical issues that might arise at trial.