People v Flynn

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judgment Date: 01 January 1996
• Date: 01 January 1996
• Court: Circuit Court

(Dublin Circuit Criminal Ct.)

People

and

Flynn

- Discovery of documents -Principles applicable - Whether discovery available in criminal cases - Whether discovery available against a notice party in such proceedings -Prosecution - Duty of disclosure - Implication of failure to discharge duty - Rules of the Superior Courts, 1986 (S.I. No. 15), O. 31, r. 29.

1. 0.31, r.29 of the Rules of the Superior Courts, 1986, provides, inter alia: Any person not a party to the cause or matter before the court who appears to the court to be likely to have or to have had in his possession custody or power any documents which are relevant to an issue arising or likely to arise out of the cause or matter … may by leave of the court upon the application of any party to the said cause or matter be directed by order of the court … to make discovery of such documents or to permit inspection of such documents. 0. 125, r. 1 of the rules defines 'cause' as including 'any criminal proceeding'. 0.59, r.14 of the Rules of the Circuit Court, 1950, provides: Where there is no rule provided by these rules to govern practice or procedure, the practice and procedure in the High Court may be followed. The accused were charged with conspiracy to defraud a company, ALH, which was a subsidiary of the notice party company. The defence proposed to be relied on by the accused was that the acts alleged to constitute the fraud were done with the consent of, and pursuant to a policy approved by, ALH. The second named accused alleged that he needed discovery of documents in the possession of the notice party in order to show that both it and ALH were aware of, and approved of, his actions. He alleged that investigations by his solicitor had turned up a record of a garda interview with the managing director of ALH, which was a vital document that had not been disclosed to him. He further alleged that one vital witness was not going to testify, while others had suffered failures of recollection. He therefore contended that discovery of certain specified classes of documents was necessary. The D.P.P. rejected all allegations against him and contended that he had taken all reasonable steps to secure disclosure of information to the accused. The notice party contended: (1) That discovery could not be available in criminal proceedings because the D.P.P. could not be entitled to require the accused to list all documents in his possession, even those in respect of which he might rely on the...