- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Smith v The Director of Public Prosecutions (Unapproved)
Supreme Court Decision: Access to Digital Audio Recordings and Transcripts of Court Proceedings
Factual and Procedural Background
This appeal concerns an application by the Appellant for access to the digital audio recording (DAR) of court proceedings, or a transcript of that recording. The opinion explains that the dispute is confined to access to the DAR/transcript and does not involve other court records such as pleadings, submissions, affidavits, or reports. The application was dealt with by the Circuit Court, and the Supreme Court addresses whether access should have been granted and the procedural steps (including notification to non-parties) that should have been followed in considering such an application.
The Supreme Court judgment (authored by Judge Collins) also references a separate judgment by Judge Donnelly, with which Judge Collins agrees, and indicates that the appeal will be disposed of in the manner and with the orders proposed by Judge Donnelly.
Legal Issues Presented
- What is the legal standard under Order 123 of the Rules of the Superior Courts for granting access to a digital audio recording of proceedings (or its transcript), and does the public administration of justice entail any general right of access to such records?
- What factors, including the rights and interests of victims and witnesses, must be considered in determining whether access is “necessary in the interests of justice”?
- When, if at all, should victims or other witnesses be placed on notice of an application for access to recordings/transcripts, and what is the scope of the court’s power to impose terms and conditions restricting publication or further use when access is granted?
Arguments of the Parties
The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Precedent A [1998] 1 IR 359 | Open justice: the administration of justice in public is a core feature of a democratic society. | Used to frame the constitutional context, while emphasizing that public hearings do not equate to an absolute right of access to court records. |
| Precedent B [2017] IEHC 209; [2017] 2 IR 343 | Distinction between access to court proceedings and access to court records. | Supports the position that access to records is separately controlled and not automatic. |
| Precedent C [2001] IEHC 35; [2001] 3 IR 43 | Court transcripts are records under the control of the courts; Freedom of Information legislation does not apply to such court-held records. | Affirms court control over transcripts and the courts’ authority to regulate access. |
| Precedent D [2008] IESC 43; [2009] 1 IR 298 | Transcripts provided to parties remain under court control; further use requires court permission; access may be allowed when necessary to do justice. | Relied on to underscore that access and subsequent use are subject to judicial control oriented to the administration of justice. |
| Precedent E [2025] IESC 16 | Participants in the justice system (including victims and witnesses) retain privacy rights even where proceedings are public. | Highlights that privacy interests may weigh against granting access to recordings/transcripts. |
| Precedent F [2020] IECA 102 | Access to records is not as of right; courts control access. | Supports the interpretation of Order 123 as conferring discretionary, not automatic, access. |
| Precedent G [2021] IECA 69 | Further affirmation that access is a matter of judicial discretion guided by the interests of justice. | Reinforces the non-automatic nature of access to recordings/transcripts. |
| Precedent H [2024] IECA 86 | Court’s power to regulate access and emphasize affected interests beyond the applicant. | Used to support the multi-interest balancing inherent in access applications. |
| Precedent I [2024] IESC 37 | Where access to a transcript is sought for a legitimate purpose connected with the administration of justice, it should generally be facilitated. | Balanced against other interests to clarify that “interests of justice,” not merely the applicant’s interests, is the controlling standard. |
| Precedent J [2023] IEHC 728 | View that terms and conditions on access should not ordinarily be imposed absent exceptional circumstances or likely abuse. | The Supreme Court declines to endorse this approach and emphasizes that conditions are an essential safeguard and will commonly be appropriate. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
Judge Collins, writing for the Supreme Court, situates the analysis within the constitutional principle of open justice while affirming the longstanding legal distinction between access to public proceedings and access to court records. The Court reiterates that transcripts and audio recordings are court records under judicial control, and that there is no automatic, public-right entitlement to obtain them.
Order 123 of the Rules of the Superior Courts governs access to DARs and transcripts. The Court stresses that the governing test is whether granting access is “necessary in the interests of justice.” This standard is characterized as flexible and generous, but nonetheless meaningful, and it requires more than an applicant’s preference or convenience. Although access should generally be facilitated when sought for a legitimate purpose connected to the administration of justice, the “interests of justice” encompass more than the applicant’s interests and include the rights and interests of parties, victims, and witnesses.
The Court notes that disclosure of records may engage significant privacy interests, especially for victims and witnesses, and recognizes that the Data Protection Act 2018 and the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) may have implications in this context (though data protection issues were not argued in this appeal). It also recognizes that media reporting may present distinct public-interest considerations, but confirms that such issues do not arise here.
On procedure, Order 123 requires notifying other parties of access applications and permits (and in some circumstances, necessitates) notifying non-parties who may be affected. The Court cautions against turning access applications into burdensome satellite litigation and advocates handling them expeditiously and informally where appropriate. Depending on the clarity of the entitlement (or lack thereof) to access, courts may determine that additional notice is unnecessary or, conversely, that particular victims or witnesses should be notified or their views solicited informally.
Crucially, the Court emphasizes that where access is granted, the court may impose terms and conditions restricting publication, dissemination, or further disclosure, and may require undertakings. Judge Collins expressly disagrees with the view that such conditions should be rare or limited to exceptional cases; instead, conditions are described as an essential procedural safeguard. When access is granted for a specific purpose, it will generally be appropriate to confine use to that purpose unless further permission is obtained.
Applying these principles, the Court concludes that there was no sufficient evidential basis upon which the Circuit Court could properly have found that access to the DAR/transcript was necessary in the interests of justice. Accordingly, the application should have been refused in limine. Given that conclusion, questions regarding whether the victim or other witnesses should have been served are effectively hypothetical. Nevertheless, the Court agrees with Judge Donnelly that, considering all circumstances and the stated purpose for which access was sought, the Circuit Court President should have directed service on the victim before making any order disclosing the victim’s evidence. The Court declines to adopt a rigid rule that victims are necessary notice parties in every case; rather, service depends on case-specific factors, including the nature of the offence, whether proceedings were in public, and the age and circumstances of the victim. With respect to other witnesses, the Court suggests their interests might often be protected by informal consultation through the Respondent or by notification of any access order, but it was unnecessary to decide this definitively because there was no proper basis for granting access.
Holding and Implications
Holding: The Supreme Court holds that there was no sufficient evidential basis to conclude that granting access to the DAR/transcript was necessary in the interests of justice. The application for access should have been refused in limine. The Court agrees with the analysis of Judge Donnelly and disposes of the appeal in the manner and with the orders proposed by her.
Implications: The decision clarifies that access to digital audio recordings and transcripts is discretionary and controlled by the courts under Order 123, with the decisive criterion being the interests of justice rather than a general public right. Courts should consider the rights and interests of victims and witnesses, may require notice to affected non-parties, and should ordinarily consider imposing tailored terms and conditions when access is granted for a specific purpose. In this case, the direct effect is that the Appellant is not entitled to access the DAR/transcript on the record presented; issues concerning service on the victim and witnesses are moot. The opinion provides guidance but does not purport to set a rigid rule on notice or create a general entitlement to court records.
Alert