Trial judge did not err in how he approached discovery application in European arrest warrant proceedings

European arrest warrant – discovery - Court of Appeal – High Court refused discovery in two cases - whether the Court should order discovery of the videotapes of interviews of the applicants conducted while they were in Garda detention and/or the memoranda of these interviews, in circumstances where the applicants claimed that such discovery was both relevant and necessary in order to enable them to properly advance a Point of Objection concerning the right to silence in the substantive EAW proceedings - alleged offences and the Garda Investigation - attempted placing of an explosive device under the vehicle of a PSNI officer – detained and interviewed - history of Court applications – discovery applications in EAW proceedings – pleadings – amended points of objection – prison conditions - right to silence – discovery to ascertain whether constitutional right to silence has been observed in the course of his detention and that any exception to that right, either in this jurisdiction or the requesting State, has also been protected by way of an adequate warning - basis for the discovery sought in the written submissions - case as it evolved - test on appeal - Court is not satisfied that the trial judge made an error in how he approached the discovery application on behalf of the appellants, or that any injustice would be done if his order were not set aside – test for discovery - Court was not furnished with any affidavit from a legal expert setting out the relevant legal provisions and describing the usual practice in Northern Ireland - appellants themselves knew at all times what had happened during the interviews –two right to silence arguments - not necessary to establish if warnings were given - argued that they need to see what questions were put to their clients during the Garda interview - failed to establish that the discovery sought is relevant to the first version of the right to silence argument, and they have failed to establish that the discovery is necessary in order to advance the second version of the right to silence argument – failed to provide a link between the factual background, the pleadings and the right allegedly violated – appeals dismissed - discovery refused.