Incorporated Law Society of Ireland v Minister for Justice

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: Mr. Justice Murphy
• Judgment Date: 01 January 1987
• Neutral Citation: 1986 WJSC-HC 898
• Docket Number: No. 2919P/1981
• Court: High Court
• Date: 01 January 1987

INCORPORATED LAW SOCIETY v. MIN JUSTICE

BETWEEN:

THE INCORPORATED LAW SOCIETY OF IRELAND, WILLIAM ANTHONYOSBORNE, ERNEST MARGETSON AND ADRIAN P. BOURKE

Plaintiffs

and

THE MINISTER FOR JUSTICE, THE MINISTER FOR INDUSTRY COMMERCEAND TOURISM AND THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

Defendants

1986 WJSC-HC 898

No. 2919P/1981

THE HIGH COURT

Synopsis:

PRACTICE

Documents

Discovery - Production resisted - Privilege claimed - Inspection by court - Department of State - Department advices and memoranda - Interdepartmental correspondence - Communications between Ministers of State - Conflicting public interests - Confidentiality in public service - Administration of justice - Examination of disputed documents revealing potential damage to public service as minimal - Order made for production of disputed documents for inspection - (1981/2919 P - Murphy J. - 13/12/85) - [1987] ILRM 42

|Incorporated Law Society v. Minister for Justice|

Citations:

FOLENS V MIN EDUCATION 1981 ILRM 21

GERAGHTY V MIN LOCAL GOVT 1975 IR 300

MURPHY V DUBLIN CORPORATION 1972 IR 215, 107 ILTR 65

1 Judgment of Mr. Justice Murphydelivered the 13th day of December 1985.

2 This is an application by the Plaintiffs for an Order directing the Defendants to permit the Plaintiffs to inspect the documents set out in the third part of the First Schedule to an Affidavit of Discovery sworn by Barry Harte and filed herein on the 10th day of January, 1984 and in particular to permit inspection of two letters comprised in that part of the Schedule dated the 8th day of January 1979 and the 16th day of January 1979.

3 It was agreed between the parties that it was appropriate that I should peruse the documents comprised in Part III of the Schedule aforesaid in the light of the issues raised in the pleadings herein and determine, in accordance with the principles of law established in that behalf, which (if any) of the documents comprised therein should be made available for inspection by the Plaintiffs.

4 The general principles to be applied in a case of this nature were established in Murphy .v. Dublin Corporation 1972 I.R. 215 and Geraghty .v. the Minister for Local Government 197 I.R. 300 and applied by Costello J. in Folens .v. The Minister for Education 1981 I.L.R.M. 21. As Costello J. pointed outin the latter case the relevant principle is summarised by Walsh J. in Murphy's case in the following terms:-

5 "Where documents come into existence in the course of carrying out the executive powers of the State, their production may be adverse to the public interest in one sphere of government in particular circumstances. On the other hand, their non-production may be adverse to the public interest in the administration of justice. As such documents may be anywhere in the range from the trivial to the vitally important, somebody or some authority must decide which course is calculated to do the least injury to the public interest, namely, the production of the document or the possibility of the denial of right in the administration of justice. It is self evident that this is a matter which falls into the sphere of the judicial power for determination;".

6 It appears from the Statement of Claim delivered in this matter on the 20th November, 1981, that the Plaintiffs are alleging that the failure of the first named Defendant to...