- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Minister For Justice, Home Affairs and Migration v The Director Of Public Prosecutions and Anor [No. 2] (Approved)
Factual and Procedural Background
The Plaintiff brought three applications under the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court seeking copies of books of evidence, transcripts, rulings and other prosecution materials from proceedings before the Special Criminal Court. The materials were sought for onward provision to the Inquiry examining the bombing in The City. [1][2]
The proceedings concerned prosecutions of five individuals, three of whom were deceased, one of whom resided in Northern Ireland and was not initially notified, and one of whom resided in this jurisdiction but did not appear. [3][4][5][6]
The Court heard the first and third applications, while adjourning the second application to permit notice to be given to the relevant individual. The second application was subsequently returned, but there was no appearance, and the Court made the same orders in all three proceedings. [7][8][9]
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the Court should exercise its inherent jurisdiction to order production of the requested prosecution materials for the purposes of assisting the Inquiry. [1][10]
- Whether production would cause legal prejudice to any person involved in the Special Criminal Court proceedings. [11][12][13]
Arguments of the Parties
Defendant Director of Public Prosecutions
- The Director raised no objection to the requested orders and did not assert that production would prejudice any person involved in the prosecutions. [14]
Defendant Registrar of the Special Criminal Court
- The Registrar raised no objection but identified possible logistical difficulties in locating all the documents. [14]
Relevant Individual
- The relevant individual was served in the third proceeding but did not appear or indicate a position. The individual in the second proceeding was notified by correspondence but also did not appear. [15][8][9]
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Breslin v McKenna [2009] 1 I.R. 298 | The Court may direct production of transcripts and books of evidence where necessary to do justice, provided that no legal prejudice results. Courts should generally accept a requesting court's finding that documents are necessary unless disclosure could cause fundamental injustice. | The Court held that these principles applied equally to materials sought for the Inquiry and that no relevant legal prejudice would result. [16][11][17][13] |
| Kelly v Ireland [1986] ILRM 318 | Principles concerning the Court's responsibility for the administration of justice, as approved in Breslin. | The Court relied on the principles approved by the Supreme Court in Breslin. [11] |
| Minister for Justice v DPP & Anor [2025] IEHC 771 | A previous application concerning production of Special Criminal Court judgments and sentencing transcripts for the Inquiry. | The Court treated the earlier decision as establishing the relevant approach and extended the production sought here to books of evidence and other materials. [18][19][20] |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court noted the State's formal decision to assist the Inquiry, the relevant memorandum of understanding, and the enactment of the International Co-Operation (Omagh Bombing Inquiry) Act 2026. These matters demonstrated a significant public interest in cooperation with the Inquiry and strengthened the justification for production. [21][22][23][24][25]
Applying Breslin, the Court concluded that “doing justice” was not confined to existing legal proceedings. It could include assisting the Inquiry's work and addressing the interests of victims and their families. [14]
The Court found no legal prejudice. The materials were not being sought during an ongoing trial or in circumstances involving a pending trial or retrial. Any future criminal trial would remain subject to the trial judge's duty to ensure fairness. [12][13]
The Court also accepted that any logistical difficulties in locating the documents could be managed through phased production, as had been done previously. [14][26]
Holding and Implications
ORDERS MADE: The Court ordered the Defendants to produce the materials specified in the schedules in all three proceedings under the Court's inherent jurisdiction. Production could occur on a phased basis, and there was no order as to costs. [27][26][9]
The Court also permitted the release of master transcripts by the relevant stenography service to the Registrar where necessary. [26][28]
The direct effect was to facilitate provision of the requested materials to the Inquiry. The decision applied existing principles and set no new precedent.
Alert