BAILII [Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]

High Court of Ireland Decisions


You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> High Court of Ireland Decisions >> Livingstone & Ors v. Minister for Justice & Ors [2004] IEHC 58 (2 April 2004)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/ie/cases/IEHC/2004/58.html
Cite as: [2004] IEHC 58

[New search] [View without highlighting] [Printable RTF version] [Help]



     
    THE HIGH COURT
    1995     No. 10158P

    BETWEEN/
    JAMES LIVINGSTONE, TARA BEAUCHAMP, AND
    CONOR LIVINGSTONE
    PLAINTIFFS
    AND
    THE MINISTER FOR JUSTICE, IRELAND AND
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
    DEFENDANTS
    Judgment of Mr. Justice Murphy dated the 2nd day of April, 2004.
    1.    
    Notice of Motion

    By notice of motion, the plaintiffs applied for an order directing the defendants to make discovery on oath of all documentation, computerised information, and photographic material relevant to the matters in question in the proceedings under nine categories in relation to the questions and arrest of the first named plaintiff and emotional suffering and breach duty towards all of the plaintiffs in 1992-3. A statement of claim of 6th December, 1999 and a defence dated 4th July, 2001 were duly filed. This notice of motion dated 26th November, 2003 was heard on 23rd January, 2004.

    2.    
    Statement of Claim

    The statement of claim, distinguished between the claims in respect of the first named plaintiff and that in respect of all the plaintiffs.

    The first named plaintiff claimed damages, including aggravated, exemplary and/or putative damages, for false imprisonment, abuse of the legal process, abuse of power and/or misfeasance of public office, conspiracy, conversion and detinue, slander and breach of his rights under Article 13 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

    All of the plaintiffs claimed similar classes of damages for intentional and/or negligent infliction of emotional suffering, negligence, breach of duty, and/or breach of statutory duty and breach of their constitutional rights.

    On the 7th December, 1992, the first named plaintiff discovered his wife lying bound, gagged and fatally injured, having been badly beaten and having received a gunshot wound to the head. He immediately contacted the Garda Síochána. He made available to them a list of all firearms he had in his collection and made a voluntary statement. He has maintained that he was totally innocent of and had no part whatsoever in the brutal murder of his wife.

    He pleaded that the Gardaí had been grossly abusive and insulting towards the second named plaintiff, his daughter, who was pregnant. The words complained of were defamatory and were calculated to impute that the first named plaintiff was guilty of offences punishable by imprisonment.

    The first named plaintiff pleaded that his reputation was seriously damaged. He was arrested on the 3rd March, 1993, led out of his home in handcuffs in full view of his neighbours at 7.30 a.m. The Garda Press Office issued statements and press releases to the media to the effect, inter alia, that a man in his mid-fifties had been arrested in connection with the murder. During the course of interviews certain statements were made to him. He was released at midnight on the 4th March, 1993. The manner in which he was arrested and detained constituted an intentional infliction of emotional suffering and was calculated to break him psychologically and caused him grave emotional distress. It was in breach of his constitutional rights and his rights under the European Convention. The matters were pre-planned, thereby constituting a conspiracy. Privileged communications between him and his solicitor were removed by the Gardaí.

    The plaintiffs allege that the first and second named defendants were guilty of negligence and breach of duty and/or breach of statutory duty in or about the management of the investigation into the murder of the plaintiff's wife in proceeding from the outset on the basis that the first named plaintiff was responsible when they knew, or ought to have known, (had proper investigation and/or examination been carried out at the relevant time) that it was not reasonable to do so but rather that he should be eliminated as a suspect. In so proceeding, they thereby failed and neglected to take such steps and/or carry out such procedures, steps and investigations as ought properly to have been taken or carried out in all the circumstances. In stating to the third named plaintiff that they "had the right man", which was defamatory and a deliberate and malicious attempt to falsely convey that the first named plaintiff was responsible for the murder of the third named plaintiff's mother, it was calculated to cause, and did so cause in the third named plaintiff, severe emotional distress and suffering.

    3.    
    Defence

    A defence was delivered on the 4th July, 2001, following a notice of motion for judgment in default of defence. The defence admitted some matters awaited proof in relation to others and denied particular allegations in respect of the behaviour of members of the Garda Síochána on the 29th December, 1992.

    It was denied that the alleged innocence of the first named plaintiff, or his having no part in the murder of his wife, were facts that ought reasonably be known to the Gardaí or ought to have been ascertained by them shortly after they commenced their investigation. The Gardaí regarded the first named plaintiff as a suspect in their inquiries into the identity of the person responsible for the death of his wife. That belief was a reasonable one and was based on reasonable grounds.

    It was denied that the Garda Press Office issued statements and press releases as alleged or at all. It was denied that members of the Gardaí uttered any of the words set forth in paragraph 20(a) 2(h) of the statement of claim; that Detective Garda Clinton produced photographs of the deceased or that Colonel Bernard Howard visited and was told by the Gardaí that they were prepared to release the first named plaintiff only in the absence of members of the press.

    All further matters were denied in relation to the alleged infringement of the plaintiff's rights.

    The pleadings having been closed by that defence dated the 4th July, 2001, a note of intention to proceed was filed on the 6th March, 2003, followed by the present motion filed on the 26th November, 2003.

    4.    
    Grounding Affidavit

    Gerard Charlton, solicitor for the plaintiffs listed the reasons why each of the nine categories of discovery were relevant and necessary to assist the plaintiffs in establishing the contentions outlined in the statement of claim. Voluntary discovery had been sought by letter dated the 11th June, 2003. Mr. Charlton averred that no co-operation by way of voluntary discovery was forthcoming within the time prescribed by that letter and a number of reminders were sent.

    Reasons were given why each category of documents (appended hereto) was required to be discovered. It was verified that the discovery was necessary for disposing fairly of the cause.

    5.    
    Replying affidavit

    Detective Superintendent John Gallagher of the National Bureau of Criminal Investigation, in his affidavit sworn the 21st January, 2004, regarded the letter requesting, discovery in such wide and sweeping terms, as a trawling exercise as opposed to information relevant or necessary to the issues between the parties. Such request would amount to thousands of pages involving significant cataloguing and would involve the defendants in significant costs and resources. It was not necessary for fairly disposing of the proceedings and was largely not relevant nor in the public interest.

    The public interest required the upholding of the confidentiality of such communications and the confidential nature of garda investigations. Detective Inspector Gallagher averred that it is in the public interest in the detection and prosecution of crime that discovery of such documents should not be allowed. The investigation into the death of the victim had not concluded and would remain open indefinitely. The reference to discovery in relation to persons who, in the opinion of the Gardaí, have been or could be involved in criminal and other activities would impinge on their good name if discovery in relation thereto were made.

    6.    
    Right to Discovery

    The principle underlying the right to discovery is that all relevant evidence is not only admissible but is also compellable. Litigants must have an opportunity to be heard to put forward arguments and to place all evidence relative to their claims before the court. Arguments without facts are just as sterile as arguments without legal authority. Lord Hailsham maintained that

    'In all cases before them, the courts should insist on parties and witnesses disclosing the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, where this would assist the decision of the matter in dispute (D. v. N.S.P.C.C. (1977) 1 All E.R. 589 at 600)."

    Fennell, The Law of Evidence in Ireland (2nd Edition, 2003) refers to a private interest and a public interest in the disclosure of all relevant evidence. The former, she says, is the function of the litigant's entitlement to prosecute his case, the latter is informed by the public interest in promoting an effective and fair system of justice.

    Article 6 of Bunreacht na hÉireann commits the administration of justice solely to the judiciary in the exercise of their constitutional prerogatives. On the basis of the constitutional principle of the separation of powers it falls to the judiciary to decide if the public interest is best served by the production or non-production of documents in the possession or power of the public service. The Supreme Court in Murphy v. Dublin Corporation [1972] I.R. 215 held that any conflict between the public interest in the production of evidence and the public interest in the confidentiality of documents relating to the executive power fall to be decided by the courts.

    A balance must be struck between the public interest in the proper administration of justice by making all relevant material available to litigants, and the public interest in not harming society as a whole by releasing highly confidential State information in respect of which public interest immunity is claimed. Each case must be taken on its own merits, and the balancing exercise carried out anew, because it is not only the circumstances in which the document in question came to be produced that may vary from case to case, and the facts of each case to which that document is relevant, but also the need in a given case for the particular document will depend on the other evidence potentially available from other sources.

    In Ambiorix Ltd and Others v. Minister for the Environment and Others [1992] I.R. 277 the Supreme Court held that the law relating to executive privilege was correctly stated in Murphy v. Dublin Corporation [1972] I.R. 215.

    The essential limitation discovery is that of relevance. The Supreme Court refused discovery of documents in Burke v. Central Independent Television [1994] 2 I.L.R.M. 161, where the claim was for damages for libel allegedly published by the

    defendant in a television programme purporting to deal with the activities of a subversive organisation. The basis of the refusal was the constitutional right of individual citizens to the protection of their life and their bodily integrity which must, of necessity, take significant precedence over a right to the protection and vindication of the plaintiff's good name. O'Flaherty J. made the following observations:

    "(1) It was neither permissible nor possible for the court at this stage to reach any conclusion as to the truth of the assertions which had been made. The decision of the court had to be based on the assumption that there might be a risk to the citizens who were identified in the relevant documents arising from the communication of those documents to the plaintiffs. Equally the court also had to make the assumption that the plaintiffs were in a position to establish that some or all of the accusations made against them were false and that their capacity to do so, and thereby to protect and vindicate their good name, might be imperilled by the exclusion from discovery and proof in evidence of the documents in respect of which the defendant claimed immunity.
    (2) The constitutional rights to life and bodily integrity of necessity took precedence over the right to the protection and vindication of one's good name and the right to have full and untrammelled resort to the courts. (Italics supplied).
    (3) The making of an order of discovery on terms that only the lawyers acting for the plaintiffs would have access to the documents was not a procedure which could be adopted by the court. In order to avoid a possible risk to citizens, the documents had to be kept from communication to the plaintiffs and from admission in evidence in a public court. If the plaintiffs' lawyers had access to the documents, they might find them to have the potential to be significant and weighty tools in relation to the cross-examination of witnesses called by the defendant, but find themselves unable to use the documents or explain their failure to do so to their own clients. This would constitute an undesirable breach of the duty which counsel owe to their clients and a breach of the proper trust which should exist between a lawyer and a client.
    (4) It would not be consistent with the requirements of justice to make an order merely providing for immunity against the discovery or proof in evidence of the documents."

    The ultimate decision in relation to the issue of disclosure or non-disclosure of documentation and proceedings before the courts must lie with the courts themselves, as was emphasised by the Supreme Court in Murphy v. Corporation of Dublin [1972] I.R. 215 and Ambiorax Ltd. v. Minister for the Environment [1992] 1 I.R. 272.

    O'Hanlon J., in O'Brien v. Ireland, Attorney General and Minister for Defence (High Court, Unreported, 26th August, 1994) examined the aforementioned judgments and noted that the statement of leaving it to the ultimate decision of the courts was expressed in absolute terms. He did not consider:

    "that either decision was intended to convey that the power of the legislature to intervene and confer the privilege of exemption from production and specified conferring of a document or other evidence was curtailed or restricted in any way, save insofar as any legislation enacted must not conflict with the overriding provisions of the Constitution."

    Having regard to statutory privilege and privilege conferred by reason of an oath of secrecy in relation to banking matters, it appeared to him that:

    "That a complete prohibition on disclosure exists in such cases without the courts being left with any scope to decide where necessary between conflicting claims based on the public interest between compelling production of documents and exempting them from production."

    In A.G. v. (Beef Tribunal) [1993] I.L.R.M. 82, the Supreme Court considered that privilege from disclosure of contents and details of discussion at meetings of the Government, derived, of necessity, from the Constitution.

    In Goodman International v. Hamilton (No. 3) [1993] 3 I.R. 320, the High Court (Geoghegan J.), having referred to Murphy and Ambiorax stated:

    "The common factor in these cases was a rejection of any kind of class or category privilege. Underlying them is the public interest in the administration of justice. The exclusion of admissible and relevant evidence is in general contrary to that public interest. It is for the courts to decide on the merits of appeal privilege in any particular case. But in no Irish case has it ever been held that there are no circumstances where the general public's interest in the non-exclusion of admissible and relevant evidence cannot be overridden by a conflicting public interest in a particular case in favour of non-disclosure." (at 325)

    In the same year, both public interest and legal professional privilege were examined in Breathnach v. Ireland (No. 3) [1993] 2 I.R. 458. The plaintiff claimed damages for assault and battery and false imprisonment. He had been tried and convicted in the Special Criminal Court. His appeal to the Supreme Court was upheld and he sued the State and others for, inter alia, damages for false imprisonment and for failure to vindicate his constitutional right.

    In the course of the civil action, the plaintiff brought a motion for discovery pursuant to Order 31, rule 29 of the Rules of the Superior Courts, 1986, against the D.P.P. who was a notice party to the proceedings. The application was for discovery of all records relating to his conviction which passed between certain of the defendants, being members of the Garda Síochána and other Gardaí, which were in the power or possession of the D.P.P.

    Privilege was claimed for certain documents which the court rejected on the grounds that as a class they were not immune from discovery. Privilege was also claimed for other documents, some of which had been assembled as part of the original investigation of the alleged offence in the criminal case, and also for a report sent by an investigating garda to the D.P.P. seeking his direction as to whether criminal prosecution should be brought against the plaintiff. The grounds relied upon in claiming privilege were:

    •    That the documents had been prepared by Gardai in the belief that they would remain confidential as this was necessary if the D.P.P. were to effectively carry out the statutory requirements of his office;

    •    That the documents had come into existence in contemplation of litigation.

    In considering his approach to the case, Keane J., at 469-70, said that, the High Court ordered the D.P.P. to discover "all records relating to communications between (members of the Gardaí) and the D.P.P.

    "The public interest and the prevention and prosecution of crime must be put in the scales on the one side. It is only when the public interest outweighs the second public interest that an inspection should be undertaken or disclosure should be ordered. In considering the first public interest, it is necessary to determine to what extent that, if any, the relevant documents may advance the plaintiff's case or damage the defendant's case or fairly lead to an enquiry which may have either of those consequences. In the case of the second public interest, the various factors set out by Mr. Liddy (of the D.P.P.'s office) must be given due weight. Again, as has been pointed out in the earlier decisions, there may be documents, the very nature of which is such that inspection is not necessary to determine on which side the scales come down. Thus, information supplied in confidence to the Gardaí should not in general be disclosed, at least not in cases like the present, where the innocence of the accused person is not in issue, and authorities to that effect, notably Marks v. Beyfus (1890) 25 QBD 494, remain unaffected by the more recent decisions, as was made clear by Costello J. in Director of Consumer Affairs v. Sugar Distributors Ltd. [1991] 1 I.R. 225. Again, there may be material the disclosure of which would be of assistance to criminals by revealing methods of detection or combating crime, a consideration of particular importance today when criminal activity tends to be highly organised and professional. There may be cases involving the security of the State, where even disclosure of the existence of documents should not be allowed. None of those factors – and there may, of course, well be others which have not occurred to me – which would remove the necessity of even inspecting the documents is present in this case.
    . . . The burden of satisfying the court that it should not proceed with inspection should lie upon the person seeking to withhold the document." (italics supplied)

    In Gormley v. Ireland [1993] 2 I.R. 75, where the plaintiff had been interned in 1957 under the Offences Against the State Act, claimed a salary reflective of his age when his suspension was lifted. He sought discovery. The defendants argued that the documents would be contrary to public policy and national security. Murphy J. held:

    ". . . I would not go so far as to say that all the documents in respect of which executive privilege is claimed would involve national security. On the other hand there are unquestionably confidential, sensitive documents recording for the greater part submissions and advices by senior civil servants to ministers and indeed to the Government. It is in the public interest that communications of this nature should be made on the basis that they would not be disclosed in legal proceedings unless the court is satisfied that the public interest in this regard is outweighed by the conflicting interest of the litigant to have access to such documents as may be necessary to enable him to prosecute fairly and properly his action in the court set up under the Constitution. In attempting to balance these conflicting claims in the light of the issues raised on the pleadings, it seems to me that, notwithstanding the executive privilege attaching to all of these documents and those which set out the Government policy in relation to an undertaking being required to be given by a civil servant who has been detained under the Offences Against the State Act, 1939, is a condition of restoration to duty should be disclosed. In addition, documentation dealing specifically with the alleged refusal of the plaintiff to give such undertaking should likewise be disclosed." (italics supplied)

    Other documentation which comprises largely of correspondence with the Gardaí, it was held, would be properly treated as highly confidential material, the disclosure of which might be significantly detrimental to the public interest. The court stressed that, in relation to documents which were to be disclosed and inspected, they were to be made available for the proper processing of the litigation and not for any other purpose. They were to be made available to the solicitor on behalf of the plaintiff, on the undertaking of the solicitor to provide copies of such documents to counsel briefed by him but not to permit those documents to be inspected by any other person.

    In Skeffington v. Rooney [1994] 1 I.R. 480, the plaintiff sought discovery of documents containing statements collected by the Garda Síochána Complaints Board in the course of an investigation following allegations by the plaintiff that the defendants, members of the Gardaí, had assaulted him. Barr J., at 486, felt that, as the complainant was the one seeking discovery and all statements were in nature broadly similar to those in the book of evidence in a criminal trial, and there was nothing to suggest they were made on a confidential basis, disclosure should be made.

    A distinction can be made between civil and criminal proceedings where the desirability of protecting the confidentiality of documents may be of vastly greater significance in matters of a criminal nature. In Breathnach, Keane J. pointed out the merits of applying different considerations to communications between Gardaí and the D.P.P., where the public interest in the prevention and prosecution of crime "must be given due weight".

    After alluding to the judgment of Finlay J. in Smurfit Paribas Bank Ltd. v. A.A. Export Finance Ltd. [1990] 1 I.R. 469, Keane J. held that privilege from disclosure of documents made in contemplation of litigation did not extend to documents submitted by an investigating garda to the D.P.P. for the purposes of obtaining a decision whether or not a prosecution should be obtained. He did grant privilege to a document which consisted of legal advice from a legal assistant to the D.P.P. and also to directions issued by the Director in relation to charges subsequently brought against the accused.

    In summary, there does not appear to be a blanket ban against making an order for discovery where a litigant seeks his or her Garda file or documents relating to a criminal investigation. Police communications are not, as a class, privileged. However, the case law indicates that each case will be decided on its own facts.

    In Doyle v. Garda Commissioner [1999] 1 IR 249 (1998) 2 I.L.R.M. 523, the plaintiff complained to the European Commission on Human Rights that the police force in Northern Ireland had failed to investigate properly the car bomb explosions which had occurred in Dublin and Monaghan in 1974. He issued a plenary summons seeking discovery of all documentation in the possession of the Garda Síochána concerning their investigation into the bombings. His daughter and his infant grand daughters were three of the innocent victims. Both the High Court, and on appeal, the Supreme Court, dismissed the application. The Supreme Court (O'Flaherty, Denham, Barrington, Keane and Murphy JJ.) held that the court retained the jurisdiction to make an order for sole discovery. This jurisdiction was one which should be exercised sparingly, being reserved mainly for cases where an applicant had established a wrongdoing but was unable to identify the wrongdoers. It could only proceed on the basis of evidence or agreed facts. It was not equivalent to an interlocutory motion for discovery and could not, therefore, be grounded on hearsay or assertion. This can have no application to the present case.

    7.     Decision of the Court

    While there would appear to be a detailed itemisation of documents within each category it is not clear whether and to what extent these are relevant. While the totality of documents in an incident room may be relevant to a criminal prosecution it does not follow, despite the extensive claims made by the plaintiffs in this case, that those documents are relevant in a civil claim.

    Neither the plaintiffs nor the court can review a police investigation which is an executive function other than by way of judicial review.

    Superintendent Gallagher claim confidentiality and public interest immunity. The investigation has not concluded.

    The present application arises in the context of a civil claim. There is no duty such as there is on the prosecution to proffer to make available all material evidence to a defendant. While Discovery is not available in criminal proceedings, People (D.P.P.) v. Sweeney (Supreme Court, unreported, 9th October, 2001) a plaintiff in a civil matter is entitled to apply for an order pursuant to Order 31 rule 12 by specifying the precise categories of documents in respect of which discovery is sought. An applicant must verify that such discovery is necessary for disposing fairly of the cause or matter or for saving costs and must furnish the reasons why each category of documents is required to be discovered.

    Subject to this, the plaintiffs have a right to discovery of documents relevant to their claim. The court must balance that right with the public interest in not disclosing documents in respect of which public interest immunity and privilege is claimed.

    The following principles emerge from the case law referred to above.

    The court should assess relevant documents in respect of which public interest immunity executive privilege is claimed.

    Information supplied in confidence to the Gardaí should not in general be disclosed.

    Any material the disclosure of which would be of assistance to criminals by revealing method of detention or combating crime should not be disclosed.

    Other documentation in respect of which public interest or executive privilege is not claimed but which are considered to be privileged should be made available to the plaintiffs solicitors on the solicitors undertaking to provide copies to counsel briefed but not to permit these documents to be inspected by any other person and to return originals or copies to the Gardaí on the conclusion of the litigation.

    The court must be aware of the potential of the disclosure of the documents in categories 1 to 4 hampering the criminal investigation into the murder of Mrs. Livingstone and the possible prejudice of a prosecution.

    According in relation to categories 1 to 4, which range from the generality of documents held to a wide range of particulars from the date of death of Mrs. Livingstone to the arrest of the applicant, the court should assess their relevance.

    Council should agree and net the issues for the court having regard to relevance practicality and costs.

    Category 5 relates to media releases and briefings. The defendants have indicated that they consent to an order for discovery within this category under terms limited as follows:

    All documentation relating to any media releases and any media briefings made by or on behalf of An Garda Síochána concerning or which could be perceived as referring to any of the plaintiffs.

    Category 6 comprises:

    All material relating to any media releases and briefings to include copies thereof, in particular with regard to the episode of the RTE programme "Prime Time" and all instructions and directions given in relation thereto, to include for the avoidance of doubt, all diary entries, notes, memoranda, correspondence or communications whatever, whether between members of An Garda Síochána in relation thereto, or between members of An Garda Síochána and RTE in relation thereto, or between members of An Garda Síochána and/or RTE and members of the public in relation thereto.

    Category 6 is unduly extensive, it refers to the broadcast following on the subsequent investigation into the murder, carried out by the second Garda investigation team. It would seem sufficient that it should be limited to category 5; all media releases and briefings between members of the Gardaí and the media. There are no reasons given as to why the discovery should be so extensive as to include anything further.

    The applicant referred to his public exoneration and requited documents which would "show the basis for the conclusions reached by the second investigation team as distinct from the manner in which the first investigation team conducted themselves and may assist in establishing the plaintiff's contention that the first team acted without due care and should have eliminated the first named plaintiff as a suspect in all the circumstances." It seems that these documents, if they exist, fall within the category of public interest immunity.

    Category 7 is all or any custody records in respect of the first named plaintiff.

    Category 8 comprises copies of all documentation removed from the first named plaintiff's home or his car or that of Grace Livingstone and/or from his place of business, to include any communications between himself and his solicitor, together with all or any inventory of all items whatsoever removed from the home and place of work of the first named plaintiff.

    Category 9 relates to matters which were sent in contemplation of litigation and would seem to me to be clearly privileged. It does not seem that there is any necessity to itemise these in an affidavit of discovery.

    The defendants also consent to discovery under categories 7 and 8 but object to category 9 by reason of the fact that it is not in the public interest in that it may contain vital information in relation to the weight to be attached to a particular witness or item of evidence between the Garda Síochána and the D.P.P. As the investigation remains open, such disclosure could hinder the investigation or subsequent prosecution. It is detrimental to the public interest in the administration of justice. Moreover, documentation sought under category 9 arises in the context of giving and/or receiving legal advice and/or privilege from disclosure.

    The court will make an order for discovery of all documents relating to any media releases and media briefings made by or on behalf of An Garda Síochána concerning or which could be perceived as referring to any of the plaintiffs (category 5), discovery in respect of category 6, and discovery in relation to categories 7 and 8.

    Indeed, there is every good reason why the defendants, must establish in the relevance of documents with the advice of their legal team, cannot make such preliminary determination, even in a broad sense. The defendants have made such a determination with regard to categories 5, 7 and 8.

    APPENDIX
    CATEGORIES OF DOCUMENTS
    1. The Garda Investigation file or files into the murder of Grace Livingstone to include all records, notes and memoranda, statements, howsoever arising, correspondence, electronic material, films, photographs, maps and/or results of any examinations and/or reconstructions and other such material generated in relation thereto to encompass, for the avoidance of doubt, all or any such files compiled and brought into existence by both the First and Second Investigation teams appointed in respect of the murder of Grace Livingstone.
    2. In particular, but without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing:-
    (a) All or any reports of members of An Garda Síochána involved in and/or relating to the first investigation into the murder of Grace Livingstone together with copies of all material referred to therein;
    (b) All or any reports of members of An Garda Síochána involved in or relating to the second investigation into the murder of Grace Livingstone together with copies of all material referred to therein.
    (c) The report or reports compiled by Senior Garda Officials with regard to an investigation into the murder of Grace Livingstone to include, in particular the report or reports of Chief Superintendent Kevin Carty (as he was, now Assistant Commissioner) and Superintendent Tom Connolly together with copies of all material therein referred to.
    (d) All material generated by the Gardaí in relation to a meeting between Chief Superintendent Culhane and his assistant and the first named Plaintiff and his solicitor on the 19th day of August 1993 at Santry Garda Station.
    (e) All reports, statements, notes memoranda, correspondence, electronic material, film, photographs, maps and/or results and other such material generated by:
    a. The Ballistics Section
    b. The Forensic Science Laboratory;
    c. Fingerprints Section in relation to all the tape which bound the victim, Grace Livingstone, or to the firearm used in her murder,
    d. All such material generated by the Pathologist Professor Harbison and his staff or any other pathologist and their staff involved in the investigation into the murder of Grace Livingstone.
    e. All such material generated as a result of any examination of or carried out at 37 The Moorings, Malahide in the County of Dublin to include any reconstruction carried out thereat.
    (f) The Jobs Book in relation to any investigation into the murder of Grace Livingstone.
    (g) Notes and/or reports or other material of all collators generated during the course of all or any investigations into the murder of Grace Livingstone.
    (h) All reports from Dr. Moodley and all attendances by members of An Garda Síochána on him to include all notebook or diary entries, memoranda or any such material.
    (i) Copies of all notes, notebook and/or diary entries of all members' interviews with all persons interviewed in connection with any investigation into the murder of Grace Livingstone.
    (j) Copies of all statements taken during the course of the investigations
    aforesaid together with the index books in relation thereto.
    3. In particular with regard to the two foregoing paragraphs and for the avoidance of doubt, copies of
    (a) All statements taken from any of the Plaintiffs in connection with the investigation or investigations together with all or any notes, diaries or notebook entries of members of An Garda Síochána relation thereto;
    (b) All statements taken from or notes, diary or notebook entries with regard to any interview with Colonel Bernard Howard;
    (c) All statements taken from or notes or diary or notebook entries or details of any criminal records in the State or abroad in respect of interviews with any door to door collectors in the area of the Plaintiff's home on the day of or the week preceding the murder including in particular collectors for the Irish Epilepsy Association at the relevant time;
    (d) Reports, statements, notes, diary or notebook entries of the first two members of An Garda Síochána to arrive at the scene of the murder on the 7th December, 1992, namely Garda F. Gunne and Garda Catherine Moran;
    (e) Any statement, notes, diary or notebook entries in relation to any interview with Mrs. Margaret Murphy who arrived at the scene on the night of the murder;
    (f) Statement of Mrs. Watchthorn or any notes, diary or notebook entries in relation to any interview or interviews by members of An Garda Síochána of her:
    (g) Statements of all witnesses who heard a loud noise on the afternoon of the murder together with the notes of any Gardaí on each interview or diary entries in relation thereto;
    (h) Statement of Philip McGivney the landscape gardener or tree surgeon who was in The Moorings on the afternoon of the murder together with copies of all the notes of any Gardaí of any interviews or diary entries in relation thereto;
    (i) Statements of the schoolgirls in respect of a young man whom they saw in The Moorings or its environs on the afternoon of the date of the murder together with the notes of all members of all interviews or the diary entries of all members in respect of the said schoolgirls.
    (j) All reports on the investigations of suspicious persons or strangers seen in the vicinity of the crime on that day.
    (k) Statement of the man in the car park who saw a youth approach his car which was of a reddish or orange colour and parked in the car park and drive same therefrom together with any attendances or memos or diary entries, with particular reference to the registration particularly of the car or of its description.
    (l) Statement of the man who observed the youth driving on the public highway and at a roundabout and followed the car for a considerable distance together with any reports, maps or memos or diary entries in respect thereof;
    (m) Statement of any other person who saw the youth driving the car whether on the road or at the roundabout together with any attendances or memos or diary entries.
    (n) Copies of all material generated within or outside the State to trace or locate the said red or orange coloured car and copies of the results.
    (o) Statement of Art O'Connor and/or of his wife together with copies of all interviews or memos or diary entries of any member of An Garda Síochána in respect thereof;
    (p) Statements of persons at the Defendant's place of employment at the Revenue Commissioners together with the notes and diary entries of all members in respect of such interviews or searches thereat.
    (q) Copies of all (Garda questionnaires completed or incomplete, issued in respect of the murder, and any memoranda, interviews, responses or diary entries in respect of same
    (r) All records whatever relating to the ambulance or emergency services at the scene of the murder of Grace Livingstone at Number 37 The Moorings, Malahide on the 7th December, 1992.
    (s) All material generated by the Gardaí to trace or identify the source or manufacturer or vendor of the tape used to bind the victim Grace Livingstone.
    (t) All material generated between the Gardaí and the first named Plaintiff's employer in relation to the murder of Grace Livingstone.
    4. All Garda Reports, notes, memoranda, correspondence or communications whatever in respect of any conferences relating to the investigation or investigations including any decision to arrest the first named Plaintiff, all or any directions or instructions issued with regard to his arrest on the 3rd day of March, 1993.

    5. All documentation relating to any media releases and briefings to include copies thereof with regard to the investigation in the murder of Grace Livingstone together with all or any documentation relating to any instructions or directions given in relation to any press releases or briefings to include all diary entries or notes, memoranda, correspondence or communications whatever, whether electronic material or otherwise in respect thereof,

    6. All material relating to any media releases and briefings to include copies thereof, in particular with regard to an episode of the R.T.E. programme "Prime Time" and all instructions and directions given in relation thereto, to include for the avoidance of doubt, all diary entries, notes, memoranda, correspondence of communications whatever, whether between members of An Garda Síochána in relation thereto, or between members of An Garda Síochána and R.T.E. in relation thereto or between members of the Garda Síochána and/or RTE and members of the public in relation thereto.

    7. All or any custody records in respect of the first named Plaintiff.

    8. Copies of all documentation removed from the first named Plaintiff's home or his car or that of Grace Livingstone, and/or from his place of business to include any communications between himself and his solicitor together with all or any inventory of all items whatever removed from the home and place of work of the first named Plaintiff.

    9. All or any reports, files, correspondence, communications, directions, attendances or diary entries whatever sent to the Director of Public Prosecutions in relation to any person or persons suspected of the murder of Grace Livingstone to include in particular any Garda report, file, correspondence or communication whatever passing to or from the Director of Public Prosecutions, his servants or agents, in relation to any of the Plaintiffs herein and, for the avoidance of doubt, all such similar material in relation to an intended prosecution of the first named Plaintiff for firearms related offences, the prosecution and the result thereof.


BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII
URL: http://www.bailii.org/ie/cases/IEHC/2004/58.html