Skeffington v Rooney

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: Keane J.
• Judgment Date: 13 March 1997
• Neutral Citation: 1997 WJSC-SC 3669
• Court: Supreme Court
• Docket Number: 217/93,[S.C. No. 217 of 1993]
• Date: 13 March 1997

SKEFFINGTON v. ROONEY

BETWEEN

DAVID SKEFFINGTON

Plaintiff

AND

PATRICK J. ROONEY, JOHN J. COYLE, THE MINISTER FOR JUSTICE, THE MINISTER FOR FINANCE, IRELAND AND THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

Defendants

1997 WJSC-SC 3669

Keane, J.

Murphy, J.

Lynch, J.

217/93

THE SUPREME COURT

Synopsis:

Practice and Procedure

Discovery; action for damages following an alleged assault by members of the Gardai; plaintiffs sought discovery of all documents in the possession of the Garda Siochana Complaints Board following its investigation into the alleged assault; whether public interest in disclosure of documents outweighed by public interest in ensuring the statutory functions of the Board are not frustrated; whether statutory immunity against disclosure; s.12 Garda Siochana (Complaints) Act 1986 Held: Discovery ordered; appeal dismissed. (Supreme Court: Keane J., Murphy J., Lynch J. 13/03/1997)

Skeffington v. Rooney & Ors.

[1997] 1 IR 22 - [1997] 2 ILRM 56

Citations:

SKEFFINGTON V ROONEY 1994 1 IR 480

GARDA SIOCHANA (COMPLAINTS) ACT 1986 S12

OFFICIAL SECRETS ACT 1963

CENTRAL BANK ACT 1942

CULLY V NORTHERN BANK FINANCE CORPORATION LTD 1984 ILRM 683

O'BRIEN V IRELAND 1995 1 IR 568

B (P) V L (A) 1996 1 ILRM 154

COMPAGNIE FINANCIERE DU PACIFIQUE V PERUVIAN GUANO CO 1882 11 QBD 55

AMBIORIX LTD V MIN FOR ENVIRONMENT 1992 1 IR 277

DIRECTOR OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS & FAIR TRADE V SUGAR DISTRIBUTORS LTD 1991 1 IR 225

NEILSON V LOUGHARNE 1981 QB 736

HALFORD V SHARPLES 1992 1 WLR 736

ADOPTION ACT 1976

MURPHY V DUBLIN CORPORATION 1972 IR 215

AG V HAMILTON 1993 2 IR 250

CONSTITUTION

D V NSPCC 1978 AC 171

MARKS V BEYFUS 1890 25 QBD 494

R V LEWES JUSTICES EX PARTE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPT 1973 AC 388

BURMA OIL CO LTD V GOV & CO OF THE BANK OF ENGLAND 1980 AC 1090

O'KELLY, IN RE 1974 108 ILTR 97

BURKE V CENTRAL INDEPENDENT TELEVISION PLC 1994 2 IR 61

AG V MULHOLLAND 1963 2 QB 477

DEFENCE ACT 1954

CULLY V NORTHERN BANK FINANCE CORPORATION LTD 1984 ILRM 683

CENTRAL BANK ACT 1942 S31

1 13th day of March, 1997 by Keane J. [NEM DISS]

Introduction

2 In these proceedings, the Plaintiff is claiming damages for personal injuries which he alleges he sustained as a result of an assault by the first and second named Defendants, who are members of the Garda Siochana and who are hereafter referred to as "the garda officers", and in respect of what was alleged to be negligent driving by one of the garda officers of a garda car on the same occasion. The alleged assault and negligence were the subject of a complaint by the Plaintiff to the Garda Siochana Complaints Board (hereafter "the Board") and the Plaintiff applied to the Master of the High Court for an order of discovery of all documents in the possession of the Board pertaining to the complaint. The application having been refused by the Master came before Barr J. who, in a reserved judgment on the 27th May 1993, (reported in [1994] 1 IR p.480) concluded that the Plaintiff was entitled to such an order of discovery. From his judgment and order, the Board now appeal to this court.

3 The proceedings arise out of an incident in O'Connell Street, Sligo on the 17th May 1987. The Plaintiff alleges that he was assaulted and beaten by the garda officers on that occasion and suffered further personal injuries as a result of the negligent driving of the garda car by one of the garda officers. The garda officers and the other Defendants deny the allegations made by the Plaintiff and say that, on the occasion in question, the Plaintiff was obstructing the garda officers in their efforts to provide transport for a third party who was in a drunken condition.

4 An affidavit was filed on behalf of the Plaintiff by his solicitor in which he said that he requested the Board to furnish him with details of the response of the garda officers to the complaint made by the Plaintiff to them, but that the Board had refused to furnish him with that information. In a replying affidavit, the Chief Executive of the Board, Mr. Sean Hurley, referred to the provisions of the Garda Siochana (Complaints) Act 1986(hereafter "the 1986 Act") under which the Board was established and, in particular, to Section 12 which prohibited the disclosure of confidential information by members or staff of the Board. He said at paragraph 5:-

"A paramount concern of the Board has always been to maintain the confidentiality of the contents of any investigation conducted by the Board. This, on the one hand, ensures the efficacy of the continuing work of the Board that persons, both members of An Garda Siochana and members of the general public will more freely assist the Board when they can be assured of the confidentiality of any statements made by them to the Board. It also protects against evidence collated by the Board, while exercising its independent functions, being utilised by either party to a dispute in either civil or criminal proceedings. I further say and believe that it is essential for the effective exercise of the functions of the Board under the Act that complaints made to it be treated in confidence."

The High Court Judgment

5 In his judgment Barr J. summarised the procedures carried out by the Board as follows:-

"The Board... proceeded to have the complaint investigated pursuant to the statutory duties and powers conferred on the Board. An investigating officer was duly appointed to enquire into the matter on behalf of the Board. Eleven persons were interviewed in course of the investigation and written statements were obtained from each of them. They included the Plaintiff, the third party and (the garda officers).

The others were independent witnesses who observed the alleged fracas and who described what they saw in their respective statements. On completion of his enquiries, the investigating officer compiled a report on the Plaintiff's complaint for the consideration of the Board. The report was duly considered and the Board decided to refer the matter to the Director of Public Prosecutions. He in turn directed that no criminal charges were warranted. In pursuance of the powers conferred on the Board by s. 7(8) of the (1986) Act, it decided to take no further action and this decision was communicated to the parties involved."

6 Barr J. said that he considered that his function was, having read the documents in question, to resolve the conflict (if such existed in this case) between the public interest in the production of evidence (being the right on which the Plaintiff relied) and the public interest in the confidentiality of documents relating to the exercise of the quasi judicial statutory power (on which the Board relied). Having said that he appreciated that some complainants might be inhibited from approaching the Board if confidentiality were not assured and might make a complaint specifically on the basis of confidentiality and that the same might apply to other persons interviewed by an investigating officer in connection with a complaint, he summed up his conclusions as follows:-

"These considerations do not seem to apply in the present case. The complainant is the person who is seeking the discovery of documents and all the statements are in nature broadly similar to those which one might find in what is popularly referred to as the book of evidence in a criminal trial on indictment. There is nothing in any of the statements of a confidential nature nor anything to suggest that any of the persons who made statements did so on a confidential basis. I do not consider that the functions of the Board would be compromised in any way by disclosure to the Plaintiff of all statements obtained on behalf of the Board in connection with his complaint. It follows that the Defendants are also entitled to sight of the statements and copies thereof if they seek them from the Board."

Submissions of the Parties

7 In this court, Mr. McMenamin, S.C. on behalf of the Board submitted that the learned High Court judge had erred in law in holding that the test to be applied was simply the balancing of the public interest in the production of documents against the public interest in the confidentiality of documents relating to the exercise of a quasi judicial statutory power. He said that, in confining himself to that test, Barr J. failed to have regard to the express statutory prohibition on the disclosure of confidential information contained in Section 12 of the 1986 Act. Having referred to the fact that s. 12 applies, not merely to particular information which is expressed to be confidential, but also to information of a particular class or description which is expressed to be confidential, Mr. McMenamin compared the prohibition imposed by the section to similar statutory constraints contained in legislation such as the Official Secrets Act 1963, the Central Bank Act 1942and the Adoption Act 1976.He cited in support the decisions of O'Hanlon J. in Cully v. Northern Bank Finance Corporation Limited [1984] ILRM 683 and O'Brien v. Ireland & Ors. [1995] 1 IR 568 and of Costello P. in PB v. AL [1996] 1 ILRM 154.

8 Mr. McMenamin further submitted that the test to be applied in every application of this nature was that laid down in Compagnie Financiere du Pacifique v. The Peruvian Guano Company [1882] 11 QBD 55 i.e. whether the documents contained information which might either directly or indirectly enable the party requiring them either to advance his own case or to damage the case of his adversary. He said there was nothing in the judgment of Barr J. to indicate that the documents meet those criteria.

9 Mr. McMenamin conceded that the concept derived from the English law of "public interest immunity" could not be regarded as consistent with the Constitution, having regard to the series of decisions culminating in Ambiorix Limited & Ors. v. The Minister for the...