Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel. Click here to request a subscription.
|
or click here to request site subscription to search and view all judgments |
High Court grants order that defendants take steps to provide names of persons in documents provided in discovery, where those names had been redacted, in a claim arising from alleged historical sexual abuse, but refusing disclosure of other information, on the grounds that information should be released where it was proportional in the sense of ensuring a fair hearing between the parties.
The High Court: Alleged historical sexual abuse by priest/schoolteacher X – documentation sought through pre-trial discovery - certain details redacted – Plaintiff seeks those details - redactions fall into four categories – (i) Redactions of the names of people who made a complaint to An Gardai Siochana regarding X and/or took civil/criminal proceedings regarding X relating to sexual abuse – (ii) Redactions of the names of people whom X admitted to his superiors that he had abused – (iii) Redactions of the names of persons who complained of X’s actions to his religious order – (iv) the names of other individuals against whom similar allegations have been made - categories (i), (ii), (iii) deemed relevant and necessary – proportionality in issue with regard to potential breaches of privacy and confidence of third parties referred to in (i), (ii), (iii) – right of privacy requires that names of people in (i), (ii), (iii) not be provided to Plaintiff without safeguards – and to distinguish between people who have complained of X and/or taken proceedings against X and those whose name has been connected with X’s alleged abuse and/or are alleged victims of X but have elected not to take proceedings against him.
Court ordered solicitors for the defendant to contact solicitors on record for those who have complained of/taken proceedings against X and ask if their details could be disclosed to the solicitors for the Plaintiff for the purposes of assisting with his claim – Court declined to order the disclosure of the details of those who are alleged victims of X but have elected not to take proceedings against him – requires a delicate approach and does not risk the impairment of a fair hearing.
Category (iv) of tangential relevance and a disproportionate breach of confidence and privacy.
No issue arises with GDPR regulations and S60 of the Data Protection Act 2018 – orders of disclosure on previously restricted information trammeled by restrictions ordered – information was anyway relevant, proportional and necessary – Court not obliged to conduct separate analysis of relevance, proportionality and necessity.
Note: This is intended to be a fair and accurate report of a decision made public by a court of law. Any errors should be notified to the editor and will be dealt with accordingly.
The only e-mail alert service for all Irish judgments over the past 13 years. Click here to request a subscription.
Register Now