Blythe v The Commissioner of An Garda Siochana (Rev 1) [2019] IEHC 854 (18 September 2019)

BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!

JUDGMENT of Mr. Justice Richard Humphreys given on the 18th day of September,

1. Before the court is an application for an order seeking disclosure from the Garda

Commissioner of information that identifies, or may assist in identifying, persons who

have participated in the dissemination of allegedly defamatory material regarding the

2. The detail of the alleged defamation is of limited relevance for present purposes, and

indeed there may be a general question as to whether it is just and fair for a plaintiff to

have to publicly circulate and draw attention to details of a defamatory allegation in order

to seek redress for that defamation. On the face of it, while open justice is of course

crucial, it is not without its limits and the unrestricted reporting of all details of the

alleged defamation in every case may raise an issue in particular circumstances as to the

right to an effective remedy, without which all other rights are meaningless. The

Supreme Court in Sunday Newspapers Limited v. Gilchrist [2017] IESC 18 [2017] 2 I.R.

284 left open room for orders under the court’s general jurisdiction, going beyond the

statutory jurisdiction, to restrict reporting if there was a clear and pressing basis for doing

so. That is simply a general comment I make in the context of this particular case, where

the actual content of the allegations is not of central relevance to the matter that I have

3. Very sensibly, the parties agreed that the trial of the motion for disclosure would be

treated as the trial of the action because there was really nothing further left in the case

beyond the reliefs sought in the motion, and I have now received very helpful

submissions from Mr. Paul O’Higgins S.C. (with Mr. Conor O’Higgins B.L.) for the plaintiff

and from Mr. Conor Power S.C. (with Mr. James Geoghegan B.L.) for the defendant.

4. The hearing began with a minor procedural skirmish in the sense that on 18th September,

2019 the plaintiff delivered two late affidavits. Mr. Power objected to those being

admitted, but in fairness the objection was of a rather faint character and he couldn’t

point to any particular factual averment that he would have disputed had he had the

affidavits earlier, so on that basis I allowed the affidavits, although on any view they don’t

appear to be really central to the key questions on this application.

5. Strong reliance is placed by Mr. Power on the Supreme Court decision in Megaleasing v.

Barrett (No. 2) [1993] 1 I.L.R.M. 497, but to some extent that decision has been over-

interpreted by the defendant. The judgments delivered in the Supreme Court are very

fact-specific as appears from the judgment of Finlay C.J. at p. 504 which inter alia refers

“the breadth and scope of the inquiries which the plaintiffs seek”. Thus he was not

satisfied that making an order for disclosure would be appropriate in terms of whether “to

apply [the jurisdiction to order disclosure] to the facts of this particular case”. McCarthy

and O’Flaherty JJ. make other fact-specific points in their separate judgments.

6. The jurisdiction of the court to make an order for disclosure or discovery, whether against

a party or a non-party, derives from two related but congruent and mutually consistent

sources. Firstly, it is inherent in the judicial power that, at least as a general proposition,

the court can require interested parties to assist the doing of justice; and secondly, the

constitutional right of access to the courts and the related EU and ECHR right to an

effective remedy, which is also perhaps a better way to phrase the unenumerated

constitutional right, implies that the court must have the jurisdiction to make such orders

as are necessary to vindicate the right to effective access to the court and to an effective

remedy at the end of the day. In cases such as the present one, where a plaintiff is

unable to sue because a holder of information about the proposed defendants in the

defamation action is not prepared to part with that information, to refuse the order would

deprive the plaintiff of that right to an effective remedy. Both of those factors, while

mutually consistent, are relevant, and the fact that the scope of the judicial power is

engaged by discovery and disclosure orders takes the matter beyond one of being a

7. Costello J., as he then was, in his judgment in Megaleasing (with which the Supreme

Court differed) relied on English caselaw as it stood at the time, but that law has been

undergoing continuous evolution and has been extended further, particularly by the

judgment of the UK Supreme Court in Rugby Football Union v. Consolidate Information

Services Limited [2012] 1 WLR 3333. That evolution was noted by MacEochaidh J. in

O’Brien v. Red Flag [2015] IEHC 867 (Unreported, High Court, 21st December, 2015).

8. The conclusion that inevitably follows both from the inherent nature of the scope of the

judicial power and from the right of access to the court and to an effective remedy,

whether taken separately or in conjunction, is that in principle and in general there is

jurisdiction to direct discovery or disclosure that is in aid of, and will facilitate the

institution of, an anticipated action by a third party against someone else: see also para.

14 of MacEochaidh in O’Brien v. Red Flag. Nonetheless the court would need to be

satisfied of the appropriateness of such an order on the particular facts of the given case.

In his judgment in O’Brien v. Red Flag [2017] IECA 258 (Unreported, Court of Appeal,

13th October, 2017), Ryan P. made the point that just because the jurisdiction exists

doesn’t mean it is appropriate to exercise it in any particular case.

9. In the context of O’Brien, it should be noted at the outset that the judgments in that case

have to be read in the context that there was no evidence in any meaningful sense in

favour of the plaintiff in those proceedings and consequently the judgments should not be

over-interpreted as somehow setting an unnecessarily high bar to be crossed where an

10. There may well be limits to orders against persons who are not parties to the alleged

wrong the subject of the proceedings, including in particular in relation to a “mere

witness”, although the defendant here can’t be regarded as a mere witness.

11. The court’s jurisdiction to direct disclosure of discovery cannot be viewed as limited to

requiring disclosure of just the identity of the wrongdoer. Having regard to the general

considerations of the imperative of doing justice and the right of access to the court and

to an effective remedy, it would be arbitrary to impose such a limitation as a matter of

absolute principle. Nonetheless the distinction needs to be drawn between information

needed to launch the action and information needed to prosecute or advance the action.

All the plaintiff needs at the pre-action stage is the information necessary to launch the

action. If there is a case for access to further documents which are in the possession of

the Garda Commissioner but not in the possession of defendants against whom the

plaintiff intends to proceed substantively, that can be dealt with by way of third-party

discovery at a later stage. Admittedly, there is a certain duplication involved in that

12. Anyway, the plaintiff in this case doesn’t seek anything more than material related to the

wrongdoers of the minimum nature to enable him to bring proceedings. He wants their

names and addresses and details of the portions of the defamatory material in relation to

which each of them was concerned in publishing. That is information that has to be

pleaded if the plaintiff is to be in a position to institute his proceedings. It is limited to

material he needs to institute the proceedings and is a workable order. It does leave a

certain threshold to be overcome in the sense that a third party such as the Garda

Commissioner doesn’t have to disclose these details where there is nothing more than

mere suspicion of wrongdoing, and I will now turn to the question of whether there is a

Alleged requirement for clear and unambiguous evidence of wrongdoing

13. The defendant objects that there is no clear and unambiguous evidence of wrongdoing

and in particular denies that the allegations are defamatory. Starting with the latter

complaint, it may be that an entirely reasonable, humane and liberal person should not

think less of a plaintiff such as this one because of at least some of the allegations, but

that is not the test. On the material before the court, the plaintiff has a strong prospect

of coming within the point made by Walsh J. in Quigley v. Creation Limited [1971] I.R.

269, that even lawful conduct or being in a lawful situation or even being the victim of

crime may be capable of being defamatory, particularly if it has the effect of “creating an

14. A similar approach was taken in Reynolds v. Malocco [1998] IEHC 175 [1999] 2 IR 203

by Kelly J., as he then was. It is also open to the jury to consider any implied or inferred

meaning: see in particular Leech v. Independent Newspapers Ireland Limited [2014] IESC 78 ,

[2015] 2 I.R. 178 per McKechnie J. at para. 25. Innuendo was a factor in Reynolds v.

Malocco, and as stressed by Mr. O’Higgins, a false suggestion that a person is conducting

a secret life, even if not unlawful, is capable of being defamatory. The point made by

Kelly J., as he then was, at p. 217 applies. It is incorrect to say that “merely because an

activity is no longer prohibited by the criminal law an allegation of engaging in such

activity cannot be defamatory”. That principle must also apply to other activity whether it

was ever prohibited by the criminal law or not; mere legality does not prevent an

15. The affidavit put in by the defendant makes the suggestion that the material can’t be said

to identify the plaintiff. While that is a matter for the jury, on the material before the

court, the plaintiff has made out a strong case as to why he would be identified.

16. As regards the alleged requirement for the evidence of wrongdoing to be clear and

unambiguous, that is ultimately an arbitrary test and to some extent a Catch-22. The

purpose of the order sought is to enable the plaintiff to have access to the court and the

paramount consideration is the doing of justice, not the meeting of some arbitrary

standard. It is true that MacEochaidh in O’Brien referred to establishing wrongdoing “to a

high degree of certainty”, but judgments are not statutes and must be read in context

above all else, and the context of that case was an utter lack of evidence of behalf of the

plaintiff. One cannot therefore read too much into that comment, which was no doubt

influenced by the particular facts before the learned judge and the fundamental evidential

deficit in that case. Certainty, or a high degree of certainty, is not required. What is

required, in the words of Kelly J., as he then was, in EMI Records Ireland Limited v.

Eircom Limited [2005] IEHC 233 [2005] 4 IR 148, is “prima facie demonstration of

wrongful activity”. Ryan P. pointed out at para. 41(x) of O’Brien [2017] IECA 258 that

the plaintiff should show, in the case that the requested party is mixed up in the wrongful

conduct to a significant degree, while itself being innocent, that he or she has made out a

17. Insofar as the present case is concerned, a strong case has been shown that persons

unknown have defamed the plaintiff. In the context of that strong case, where a third

party such as the defendant here has relevant information that could identify those

persons, being necessary information to enable the proposed defamation proceedings to

be instituted, that is sufficient to warrant the making of an order for disclosure, subject to

18. The objection that only names and address or identifying information can properly be

sought under the Norwich Pharmacal v. Customs and Excise Commissioners [1974] AC

133 jurisdiction has in substance been dealt with by the proposed limitation on the

19. The complaint is made on behalf of the defendant that “the court should not interfere with

lawful and proper policing practice and the application of lawful policing policy by the

defendant”. Mr. Power’s submission claims that to provide further information about an

internal disciplinary investigation “would prejudice the individual concerned and the

operations of An Garda Síochána”. That is an unconvincing objection. If a member of An

Garda Síochána commits an act which is both a civil wrong and a breach of discipline, he

or she is liable to be proceeded against in both ways. Such a person is not prejudiced in

the legal sense in the disciplinary proceedings merely by being sued civilly. This objection

has all the appearance of a puff of smoke dreamed up by lawyers on behalf of the

defendant. Mr. Power also submits that “the plaintiff has established no risk of harm to

him, irreparable or otherwise, if this general order is refused”. But if the limitation period

is going to expire imminently and the plaintiff is not given the necessary information to

institute proceedings within that period, it is nonsensical to suggest that he is not

20. Mr. Power’s written submissions claim at para. 43 that the prejudice to the Garda

Commissioner will be irreparable because the identity of the Garda concerned will be

disclosed and that such a genie cannot be put back in the bottle. That point is a jus tertii

but even disregarding that, it is not a significant reason for refusing to make the order.

As noted above, the mere disclosure of that individual’s identity does not prejudice that

21. Considering all relevant factors, both ones that are availing and countervailing from the

plaintiff’s point of view, there are strong availing considerations for making the order and

Alleged failure to set out what steps the plaintiff has taken to obtain information

22. A party is not under an obligation to take all conceivable steps above and beyond the

option of seeking disclosure from a respondent to an application, or indeed to set out all

steps taken in endless detail. It is clear on the particular facts that the information in the

possession of the defendant has the potential to materially assist the plaintiff’s right of

access to the court. It may be relevant in this context that the plaintiff spent quite some

time writing letters to the defendant without much in the way of substantive reply.

23. It is also necessary to point out under this heading that no clear, simple and effective

step has been identified on behalf of the defendant that could have been taken by the

plaintiff to obviate the need for the motion. It is insufficient to simply dream up possible

wild-goose chases that the plaintiff could have gone on, or other steps that perhaps might

have yielded results, or perhaps might not have, and could perhaps have taken a very

considerable time. Mr. O’Higgins is entirely correct to describe pursuing Facebook and so

forth as being “immensely complex”. By way of analogy, it took years in Tansey v. Gill

[2012] IEHC 42 [2012] 1 I.R. 380 to track down all the potential defendants via Norwich

Pharmacal orders. Mr. Power also seems to be making some point that the plaintiff didn’t

take all steps to find out who looked at his LinkedIn page. But so what? Even if he had

done, it wouldn’t have got him anywhere because looking at LinkedIn is not evidence of

Objection that the platforms in question were not operated by the defendant

24. Mr. Power complains that “the defendant was not in any way responsible for the

messages”. That is not a valid objection. The court’s jurisdiction is not limited to orders

against persons who are responsible for the defamatory publication. The defendant was

involved beyond the mere bystander role. He was the principal of the potential

defendants, even if not perhaps strictly speaking in law their employer. He was also the

investigator of the publication for disciplinary purposes and has responsibility for discipline

in relation to members of An Garda Síochána who commit acts that amount to a breach of

discipline, which certainly has a significant evidential overlap with the behaviour

25. The court’s jurisdiction doesn’t depend on a condition that the extent to which the

respondent in the motion has got mixed up in the matter complained of being such as “to

facilitate their wrongdoing”, per Lord Reid in Norwich Pharmacal at para. 12. That is

certainly included but it is not definitional of the court’s jurisdiction. Logically, neither the

judicial power nor the right to an effective remedy can be subject to such an arbitrary

26. Mr. Power complains that the plaintiff’s proposed claim is “entirely speculative” and falls

foul of the rule against “fishing” for a case. Discovery and disclosure applications are

generally met, with all the tedious predictability of the utterly routine, by the cry that

they are fishing expeditions. Sometimes that is justified, but the complaint is so much of

a cliché that in certain circumstances it carries little, or here no, weight. This is not a

fishing expedition, still less a “textbook” example of one, as alleged in Mr. Power’s

submission. The disclosure sought is strictly limited to the absolute minimum information

27. I might finally be forgiven for venturing the comment that unfortunately it is not clear to

me why the defendant has opposed this application so vigorously or indeed at all. No real

interests of An Garda Síochána are at stake, or at most only limited interests. The

Commissioner could simply have agreed to disclosure of such minimal information as

might be required for the plaintiff to have launched the action and indeed might have had

a case for his costs if he had done so. It is very much in the interests of An Garda

Síochána that there be accountability for wrongdoing of the type alleged by the plaintiff,

and to that extent there should be a confluence of interests between the court’s role of

doing justice, the plaintiff’s rights under the Constitution and the ECHR to an effective

remedy, and the defendant’s interest in the accountability of his members to the courts

28. It appears to be strange situation that the defendant is trying to prevent the making of an

order that would allow the court’s civil jurisdiction to be invoked. While not questioning

the defendant’s strictly legal right to launch such an objection, it doesn’t necessarily seem

the most well-judged position to have adopted. In relation to the asserted confidentiality

of this information, s. 62(4) of An Garda Síochána Act 2005 makes clear that disclosure of

such information is lawful if it is either made to the court or authorised by the Garda

Commissioner, so confidentiality in and of itself is not an absolute answer to the claim

29. Mr. Power, in the course of his excellent and helpful written and oral submissions, set out

every possible matter that could have been advanced on behalf of the Commissioner, but

nonetheless I was left with a certain doubt as to why the case particularly matters to his

client. The defendant relied on legalistic points, such as whether the appropriate test was

met and whether the Garda processes are confidential, but surely a better approach

would have been to come to court asking: “how can we help the court do justice?”.

Eventually, Mr. Power came out with the suggestion that the bar for such applications had

to be high in order to deter people from making these kind of applications without due

cause, which at the level of abstract principle is a fair point, albeit an objection primarily

related to administrative convenience. But the facts of the present case are relatively

unusual and I don’t think it is very likely that this application will open a huge floodgate,

but even if it does, it is not clear that that would create any huge injustice overall.

30. In that regard, Mr. O’Higgins’ written submission asked the compelling question at para.

36: “it is not understood what marks these proceedings out from other potential

proceedings in which similar information might be sought. Is it contended that the Gardaí

would not disclose the identity of someone who had committed a serious assault on a

member of the public prior to the expiry of a time limit to sue that person for damages;

that it would refuse to disclose to a rape victim the identity of his or her assailant; that it

would not disclose to a member of the public whose house had been burgled or whose car

had been stolen or whose business had been defrauded the identity of the suspected

wrongdoer?”. One only has to ask that question to recognise the appropriate answer; and

in this case the answer will come in the form of an order requiring the defendant to

disclose to the plaintiff the names and addresses of persons where the defendant

considers that there was prima facie evidence that they were involved in publications of

allegations against the plaintiff of the general nature described in the affidavit of the

plaintiff of 3rd September, 2019 and in each case specifying the portions of the particular

defamatory material in relation to which any such person was concerned in publishing.

That information is to be provided by letter rather than affidavit, subject to hearing

counsel. There is a certain urgency here in the sense that the limitation period for issuing

the proceedings is about to expire, so I will have to hear the parties as to the deadline for

31. Having heard counsel further, the logic of the foregoing judgment is that, leaving aside

the question of a stay, the information would have to be provided before the expiry of the

limitation period. I cannot pre-judge any application to extend that period or assume that

it would be extended, and on that logic, the information should be provided by 1pm on

19th September, 2019. That is on the basis that Mr. O’Higgins indicates that 20th

32. Mr. Power has now applied for a stay. In that regard there is no perfect order that I can

make, and, if it is any consolation to the defendant, a situation such as this is not a totally

comfortable one from the court’s point of view. My inclination in this type of situation

would normally be to grant some form of stay, but there is a strong countervailing

consideration here in the sense of the imminent expiry of the limitation period, and I can’t

assume either that it would be extended, or even more speculatively that any appeal or

further appeal from my decision would be prosecuted to a final conclusion within such

33. The judgment of Clarke J. (as he then was) in Okunade v. Minister for Justice and Others

[2012] IESC 49 [2012] 3 I.R. 15 directs the court to consider where the least risk of

injustice lies in considering any stay. On the one hand, any potential appeal, if there is

an appeal, could be said to be moot if the information is already disclosed. Having said

that, mootness is not an absolute rule and there are many exceptions where appellate

courts have considered appeals notwithstanding that the factual situation has removed

the reality to the actual dispute. I indicated to the parties that I was willing to grant a

declaration as well as a mandatory order, which would not be moot, but Mr. Power did not

in the end ask me to do that, not having any instructions in that regard. Not taking up

that offer does dilute the complaint of mootness, at least to some extent. That is from

the defendant’s side. On the other hand, the plaintiff, if there is a stay, loses the

opportunity of instituting proceedings within the limitation period and therefore puts the

substantive defamation case in jeopardy. Again, that is not an absolute problem because

time can be extended, although even if it was extended he would then have to get the

case through at least one, and possibly two, appellate levels within a fixed period of time.

34. We then go back to the question I raised earlier in the judgment as to the real interests of

the parties, and in that regard Mr. Higgins has to be correct in saying that he has

“infinitely more to lose”. The plaintiff’s interests here are compelling and clear whereas

the defendant’s interests, insofar as they could be said to have been identified, are

generic, weak and marginal. Mr. O’Higgins also makes the point that the matter could

have been brought to a head much earlier if the plaintiff’s correspondence over an

extended period time had been replied to substantively, but it wasn’t. To that extent, the

fact that we are now up against a deadline is now largely a matter of the defendant’s

making. Accordingly, the balance of justice is compellingly in favour of refusing a stay.

35. Having heard the parties further as regards the costs of the proceedings, including the

motion, those follow the event in favour of the plaintiff. As regards the costs of making

the disclosure, the case for costs in making disclosure are stronger where the requested

party doesn’t object to the order, because there must be some incentive to parties to

come to terms at an early stage. Also relevant is the defendant’s delay in dealing with

the matter, to which I have referred, and the limited nature of the order made, and

consequently the relatively insignificant quantum of any costs of compliance which seems

to be broadly accepted by Mr. Power. Therefore the appropriate order under that heading

is no order as to the costs of making the disclosure.

Result: Reliefs granted.

	[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	High Court of Ireland Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> High Court of Ireland Decisions >> Blythe v The Commissioner of An Garda Siochana (Rev 1) [2019] IEHC 854 (18 September 2019) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ie/cases/IEHC/2019/2019IEHC854.html Cite as: [2019] IEHC 854

High Court of Ireland Decisions