The Minister for Justice v The Director of Public Prosecutions and Anor (Approved)

Factual and Procedural Background

The Plaintiff applied in special summons proceedings for orders requiring the Registrar of the Special Criminal Court to produce judgments and sentencing remarks for transmission to the Chair of the Omagh Bombing Inquiry. [1][2][3]

The Inquiry concerns whether the 1998 bombing in The Town could reasonably have been prevented by United Kingdom state authorities. [4][5][6] The Government had decided to assist the Inquiry and had entered into a memorandum concerning that cooperation. [7][8]

Following enquiries, the application was confined to documents identified in a revised schedule. Some documents were unavailable or held by another public authority; documents 11 and 12 were to be supplied if and when they became available. [9][10][11][12]

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the High Court had jurisdiction to order production of material held by the Special Criminal Court. [13][14]
2. Whether production was necessary for the purpose of doing justice. [15][16][17]
3. Whether production would cause relevant legal prejudice to any party. [18][19][20][21]

Arguments of the Parties

Plaintiff's Arguments

• The Court had jurisdiction to make the requested orders and should do so because production was necessary for the purpose of doing justice and would cause no relevant legal prejudice. [15]
• It was in the public interest and the interests of justice to assist the Inquiry, particularly in view of the Government's decision and the memorandum. [22][18]

Defendant's Position

• The Director of Public Prosecutions had been notified and confirmed that there was no relevant legal prejudice arising from production. [18][19]

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The High Court held that it was the appropriate court to determine an application for material from the Special Criminal Court because that court is a statutory court without jurisdiction to provide the material itself. [13][14]

Applying Breslin v McKenna, the Court considered whether production was necessary for the purpose of doing justice and whether it would cause relevant legal prejudice. [23][24]

The Court interpreted “doing justice” broadly. It was not limited to existing legal proceedings and could include assisting the Inquiry into the bombing, including the interests of those killed and their families. [17][27][25][20]

The Court found no relevant legal prejudice because the documents comprised judgments and sentencing remarks delivered in open court. This was materially different from requests for confidential or mid-trial material, or material relating to pending or contemplated trials. [20][21][28]

Accordingly, the legal test was satisfied and the Court considered it appropriate to grant the requested relief. [26]

Holding and Implications

ORDER GRANTED. The Court directed the Registrar of the Special Criminal Court to provide the Plaintiff with copies of the judgments and sentencing transcripts listed in the revised schedule. Documents 11 and 12 were to be provided if and when available. [29][30][31][32]

The Court also granted liberty to apply regarding any issue concerning the documents or any further documents that emerged, avoiding the need for fresh proceedings. [33]

The direct effect was to facilitate provision of the specified open-court materials to the Chair of the Inquiry. The opinion establishes no new precedent; it applies the principle identified in Breslin v McKenna. [25][26]