Judicial Review Is Not a Standalone Route to Obtain CCTV/Disclosure: Alternative Statutary Remedies and Inquest-Fairness as the Proper Public Law Focus

1. Introduction

Redic v Commissioner of An Garda Siochana and Ors [2025] IEHC 741 is a High Court (Gearty J.) decision on a leave application for judicial review arising from the death of the applicant’s daughter, Ms. Mary Redic, in September 2025, and an inquest subsequently held.

The applicant, Angela Redic, sought to challenge a range of matters: the adequacy of investigative steps connected to the death (including alleged failures by An Garda Síochána), the production of documents and (primarily) CCTV footage, and the fairness of the inquest conducted by the Cork City Coroner. Respondents included: the Commissioner of An Garda Síochána, the Cork City Coroner, the Chief Executive of Cork City Council, Sophia Housing Association Company, and Cantillons Solicitors.

The central issues were whether the applicant had an arguable case suitable for judicial review against each respondent, and—critically—whether judicial review was the appropriate remedy given the availability of other statutory routes (notably Fiosrú, and FOI/data protection mechanisms).

2. Summary of the Judgment

  • Leave granted only against the Cork City Coroner, and only to challenge procedures at the inquest (specifically, alleged lack of adequate opportunity to test evidence / question witnesses).
  • Leave refused against:
    • The Commissioner of An Garda Síochána: the application was, in substance, a demand for disclosure (CCTV/materials) and an attempt to advance allegations of wrongdoing better suited to other processes.
    • Cork City Council: no proper Order 84 relief was pleaded against it; disclosure requests were not appropriate for judicial review, and issues relating to the Coroner’s independence and CCTV requests engaged other regimes.
    • Sophia Housing and Cantillons Solicitors: not public bodies (leave not given to continue against them).
  • The Court refused leave to challenge the scope of disclosure by the Coroner (having regard to what was already provided: witness statements, relevant letters, postmortem report), but granted leave to challenge inquest procedure.
  • The Court struck out identified paragraphs of the applicant’s affidavit as scandalous (irrelevant/gratuitous/vexatious), given the limited (and misconceived) relief sought against certain respondents.
  • Relief permitted (against the Coroner) was confined to:
    • certiorari quashing the inquest verdict (1 May 2025) for inadequate opportunity to test evidence; and
    • an order remitting the matter for a new inquest.
  • Despite frustration with late filings, the Court did not grant relief by default; it emphasized access to justice and case management tools. Costs were awarded to the successful respondents (with an undertaking not to enforce if no appeal).

3. Analysis

3.1 Precedents Cited

Gokul v Aer Lingus plc [2013] IEHC 432

Gearty J. relied on Gokul v Aer Lingus plc [2013] IEHC 432 to address the applicant’s argument that late affidavits/submissions should result in the respondents effectively losing the application. In Gokul, Hogan J. held that time limits in court rules—even if phrased in mandatory terms—do not necessarily create a jurisdictional bar; the court retains power to extend time, informed by the constitutional right of access to the courts. This supported the Court’s refusal to determine the leave application solely on procedural default.

The judgment thereby reinforces a practical principle: lateness is primarily managed through procedural orders (including “unless orders”) rather than by depriving a party of substantive participation, absent egregious delay or demonstrated prejudice.

O'Doherty v. Minister for Health [2022] IESC 32, [2023] 2 IR 488

The leave threshold—an “arguable case” with a prospect of success—was taken from O'Doherty v. Minister for Health [2022] IESC 32, [2023] 2 IR 488 (O’Donnell C.J.). Gearty J. applied this standard in a differentiated manner: the inquest-procedure complaints met the arguability threshold, while the disclosure-driven, wrongdoing-allegation claims did not translate into reviewable public law wrongs or appropriate remedies.

Chubb European Group SE v. The Health Insurance Authority [2020] IECA 91

The Court’s emphasis on alternative remedies was anchored in Chubb European Group SE v. The Health Insurance Authority [2020] IECA 91, where Murray J. stated that if an alternative remedy exists, relief should be refused unless that remedy is inadequate or there is a particular exigency requiring judicial review. Gearty J. treated this as a decisive filter, especially where the applicant had already engaged Fiosrú for Garda-related complaints and where CCTV/document access disputes more naturally fall under Freedom of Information and Data Protection regimes.

Goode Concrete v. C.R.H. plc [2011] IEHC 310; Dublin City Council v Marble and Granite Tiles Ltd [2009] IEHC 455; Delany and McGrath on Civil Proceedings, 5thEd, 21-96 to 97

These authorities informed the Court’s approach to striking out “scandalous” affidavit material under O. 40 r. 16. The judgment distills the principle that “scandalous” is not synonymous with “serious” or “hearsay,” but rather with irrelevant, gratuitous and vexatious allegations constituting an abuse of the privilege attached to litigation evidence. Applying these principles, Gearty J. struck out numerous paragraphs that alleged murder/manslaughter and theft against named individuals where such allegations were immaterial to the only pleaded relief (a misconceived disclosure/mandamus request) and carried obvious reputational harm.

3.2 Legal Reasoning

(a) Delay and the Court’s preference for proportionate procedural control

The Court acknowledged significant frustration with late filings but refused to treat lateness as an automatic pathway to substantive success. The reasoning is constitutional and pragmatic: access to justice counsels against disposing of serious matters on procedural technicality where case-management tools (including “unless orders”) can address delay without undermining fair hearing rights.

(b) The “fit” between judicial review and the relief sought

A core theme is remedial discipline: judicial review is for reviewing decisions/processes of public bodies and, where appropriate, compelling performance of a clear public duty. It is not a mechanism to:

  • conduct fact-finding investigations into suspected criminality or negligence;
  • test contested evidence by witness examination; or
  • obtain “disclosure” as a free-standing entitlement at the outset of litigation.

On this basis, the applicant’s claim against the Commissioner was characterised as misconceived: it sought “mandamus” in form, but in substance it sought disclosure/discovery without an underlying reviewable decision or duty to provide CCTV to a member of the public.

(c) Alternative remedies: Fiosrú, FOI, and data protection regimes

Gearty J. treated the existence and use of alternative statutory pathways as determinative. Where the applicant alleged Garda wrongdoing, she had already complained to Fiosrú, which has investigative powers suited to the allegations. Where CCTV was sought from housing/administrative contexts, the Court viewed the request as properly belonging to Freedom of Information and Data Protection procedures (including appeals), rather than public law mandamus in judicial review.

(d) Coroner: arguable inquest-procedure unfairness, but not a general entitlement to the coroner’s entire file

The Court separated two strands:

  • Procedural fairness at the inquest: an arguable case existed that the applicant had an insufficient opportunity to question relevant witnesses/test evidence, especially where statements were read into the record and notice/witness availability was contested. Leave was granted to seek certiorari and remittal for a new inquest.
  • Disclosure from the coroner: leave was refused because the applicant did not identify legal authority for a right to “every document” held by the coroner, and the coroner averred that key materials had already been provided (witness statements, relevant letters, postmortem report).

(e) Scandalous averments: relevance as the controlling criterion

The Court’s striking-out order followed from its characterisation of the pleaded relief. Where the only relief sought was (misconceived) disclosure, extensive allegations of homicide/theft were not merely unproven; they were legally irrelevant to the issue the Court would be asked to decide. The judgment thus underscores a practical pleading lesson: the narrower (or weaker) the pleaded public law wrong, the more likely broad allegations will be vulnerable as “scandalous” if they function only as narrative or accusation rather than as necessary material to the relief.

3.3 Impact

  • Reinforces limits on “disclosure by judicial review”: The decision signals that applicants cannot repackage disclosure/discovery demands as mandamus absent a clear public duty. CCTV requests—common in contentious, emotionally charged disputes—will likely be redirected to data protection/FOI routes, or to plenary litigation where appropriate.
  • Strengthens the alternative-remedy filter at leave stage: The Court applied Chubb robustly, treating specialised statutory bodies (here, Fiosrú) as the proper fora for investigative complaints and resisting the gravitational pull of judicial review in cases alleging wrongdoing.
  • Clarifies coroner JR focus: The judgment shows that coronial judicial review will more readily attach to procedural fairness (opportunity to test evidence, witness participation, hearing structure) than to broad demands for the coroner’s entire documentary repository.
  • Affidavit discipline in sensitive cases: By striking scandalous material, the Court emphasizes that grief-driven suspicion does not relax litigation standards. Future JR applicants should expect courts to police relevance and reputational harm tightly at the affidavit level.
  • Procedural default arguments are disfavoured: Even where respondents file late, courts will tend toward proportionate management rather than automatic relief, especially where allegations are serious and reputationally charged.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

  • Leave (to apply for judicial review): a screening stage. The applicant must show an arguable case and that judicial review is the appropriate remedy.
  • Judicial review: a challenge to the legality/fairness of a public body’s decision-making process or failure to perform a public duty, not a trial of disputed facts.
  • Certiorari: a court order quashing a decision (here, the inquest verdict) if unlawful or procedurally unfair.
  • Mandamus: a court order compelling a public body to perform a legal duty. It does not generally create a free-standing right to obtain documents unless the duty to provide them exists in law.
  • Plenary action: ordinary civil litigation where evidence is tested through discovery, witness testimony, and cross-examination—often the proper route for negligence/damages claims.
  • Alternative remedy: another adequate legal route (e.g., a statutory complaint mechanism like Fiosrú, or FOI/data protection rights). If it exists and is adequate, judicial review is usually refused.
  • Scandalous averments (O. 40 r. 16): affidavit statements that are irrelevant to the issues and are gratuitously harmful or vexatious. They may be struck out even if sincerely believed.
  • Unless order: a procedural order stating that unless a party does something by a deadline (file/serve papers), a specified consequence follows. Courts prefer this tool to drastic sanctions where possible.

5. Conclusion

Redic is a tightly reasoned leave decision that draws a firm boundary between (i) judicial review as a mechanism for scrutinising public law process and (ii) attempts to use judicial review to obtain CCTV/disclosure or to litigate allegations of wrongdoing that require investigation and evidential testing.

The judgment’s key doctrinal messages are that alternative statutory remedies (such as Fiosrú and FOI/data protection routes) will ordinarily defeat leave where they are adequate, and that coronial judicial review is most viable when framed around procedural fairness at inquest, not broad document-entitlement claims. Finally, the decision highlights that affidavit evidence must remain tethered to the legally relevant issues; otherwise, scandalous material may be struck out to protect the integrity of the process and those targeted by unnecessary allegations.