Redic v Commissioner of An Garda Siochana and Ors (Approved)

Factual and Procedural Background

The Applicant commenced an application for leave to bring judicial review proceedings following the death of her daughter, the Deceased, and an inquest held thereafter. The Applicant sought disclosure of records, primarily CCTV footage, from the first named public respondent and from the body managing the building where the Deceased resided. Leave to continue the action was refused against two private entities on the basis they were not public bodies. The Coroner took a neutral stance to the grant of leave but filed an affidavit and will oppose remedies at the substantive hearing if leave is granted. The Court allowed the application insofar as it related to the Coroner and refused leave insofar as it related to the other Respondents, identifying alternative statutory or private remedies for those claims.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the Applicant has an arguable case and therefore should be granted leave to apply for judicial review.
2. Whether judicial review is the appropriate or sole effective remedy for complaints about the investigation into the Deceased's death and for compelling disclosure of CCTV or other material.
3. Whether procedural fairness was afforded at the inquest such that relief (including certiorari and remittal for re-hearing) is warranted against the Coroner.
4. Whether parts of the Applicant's affidavit amount to scandalous averments that should be struck out.

Arguments of the Parties

Applicant's Arguments

• The Respondents were late in filing affidavits and submissions and the Court should grant the reliefs sought due to that delay.
• The inquest into the Deceased's death was inadequate: it was short, notice of witnesses was lacking, key witnesses were missing, and the Applicant was not given sufficient opportunity to question witnesses.
• The Applicant sought disclosure of CCTV footage and other material as part of the reliefs.

Respondents' Arguments

• Most Respondents opposed leave; the Coroner adopted a neutral procedural stance but indicated he would oppose substantive remedies if leave were granted.
• The first named public respondent and others argued that judicial review is not the appropriate forum for allegations of negligence or criminality and that the Applicant has alternative statutory remedies (notably the investigative agency referenced in the papers and statutory data/FOI regimes).
• It was argued there is no entitlement to wholesale disclosure of all documents held by the Coroner and that the documents already disclosed were sufficient for fairness at the inquest.
• Respondents sought costs against the Applicant where leave was refused, noting delay in filing.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court balanced the seriousness of the allegations and the Applicant's frustration at late filings against the principles that protect access to justice. Applying Gokul, the Court declined to strike out responses for lateness and extended time where appropriate. The leave test from O'Doherty was applied: the Applicant must show an arguable case. The Chubb line of authority required the Applicant to show that judicial review was the only or the appropriate remedy where alternative statutory remedies existed.

Against the first named public respondent (police authority), the Court held that the core pleaded case was one of alleged wrongdoing or negligence — matters for criminal investigation bodies or a plenary damages action — and not a classic judicial review of a discrete public law decision. The Applicant had pursued the investigatory statutory body (referred to in the papers); accordingly leave to seek disclosure or compel production of CCTV from that public respondent in these proceedings was refused as misconceived. The Court further concluded that requests for disclosure framed as mandamus amounted to requests for information and could not be granted as standalone relief in judicial review absent a relevant public law duty.

The Court examined the Applicant's affidavit and, relying on authorities about scandalous averments, concluded that numerous paragraphs contained irrelevant, gratuitous and vexatious allegations (including unproven accusations of criminality and theft). Those paragraphs were struck out to delimit the issues the Court would consider at any full hearing.

As to the Coroner, the Court found an arguable case that the Applicant had insufficient opportunity to test evidence at the inquest (short hearing, lack of notice as to witnesses, restricted opportunity to question those present). Leave was granted, narrowly, to challenge the procedures adopted at the inquest and to seek certiorari quashing the verdict and remitting the matter for re-hearing; however, leave was refused to challenge the scope of disclosure already provided by the Coroner.

Claims against the City Council and the housing association were refused because these sought disclosure or data that should be pursued under the statutory FOI/Data Protection regimes; the Council did not control the Coroner's independent functions. The Court therefore concluded judicial review was not the correct vehicle for those reliefs.

Finally, on costs, the Court applied the ordinary rule that costs follow the event and awarded costs to the Respondents against whom leave was refused, noting their undertaking not to enforce those costs if the Applicant did not appeal the refusal of leave.

Holding and Implications

Holding: The Court granted leave to apply for judicial review only against the Coroner and refused leave in respect of the other Respondents. The Applicant was granted leave to seek (i) an order of certiorari quashing the inquest verdict of 1 May 2025 on the basis of inadequate opportunity to test evidence, and (ii) an order remitting the matter to the Coroner for a new inquest. Several specified paragraphs of the Applicant's first affidavit were struck out as scandalous. Costs were awarded to the Respondents against whom leave was refused.

Implications: The effect is procedural and specific to these parties — the Applicant may proceed to a substantive judicial review hearing only in respect of the Coroner on the limited procedural grounds identified. No broader public law precedent beyond the application of established tests for leave, alternative remedies and scandalous averments is created by this ruling; other claims alleged against public bodies should be pursued via the appropriate statutory investigatory, FOI or civil remedies identified by the Court.