Recordings of conversations between journalists and gardaí to be disclosed to Ian Bailey for his action for damages over alleged wrongful arrest by gardaí investigating the 1996 murder in west Cork of French film maker Sophie Toscan du Plantier indicate there was an "extraordinary" level of contact "beyond belief", the High Court was told.
Martin Giblin SC, for Mr Bailey, who has always denied any involvement in the murder, said his side had been unaware of the existence of the recordings and lawyers for the State had also said they were unaware of it but it “seemed someone in An Garda Síochana was”. The material was “entirely new” and indicated “hundreds and hundreds” of conversations with journalists, he said.
Counsel said 12 boxes of documents had been received by his side in the last two weeks and it had also been confirmed to them there were some 130 recordings of “differential quality”. These included recordings of conversations between gardai and journalists. Transcripts of those had been made and his side would also want to inspect the actual recordings, counsel said.
His side has also written to the DPP seeking the identities of three senior gardai referred to by former DPP Eamonn Barnes in a document expressing concern about aspects of the Garda investigation into the murder, counsel outlined. That document had been put before the Supreme Court in 2012 in extradition proceedings concerning Mr Bailey.
A court order may be required before such disclosure can be made by the DPP, Mr Giblin said.
Discovery orders were previously made in the case and the matter was before Mr Justice John Hedigan today to deal with an application by Mr Bailey for an order striking out the State's defence to his action over failure to comply with orders requiring discovery to be carried out within certain time limits.
However, because of the developments concerning disclosure of documents, the application did not proceed and the State is to continue to make disclosure. The matter will be mentioned again in May but the full hearing of Mr Bailey’s action, which will be before a High Court judge and jury, is unlikely to take place before late this year at the earliest.
After Mr Giblin outlined his side’s position, Paul O’Higgins SC, for the State, sought an adjournment to facilitate the continuing disclosure. His silence concerning Mr Giblin’s comments was not to be interpreted as agreement with those, counsel stressed.
Mr Justice John Hedigan noted this matter dated back a long time to 1996/1997 and Mr Bailey was anxious to get his case heard. However, the discovery process was continuing and, in those circumstances, he would adjourn the matter.
While stressing the courts “do not seek to restrict vigorous discussion by the media or the public of matters of great interest and importance” the judge also said he wanted to issue “a word of caution” relating to discussion by the media and the public of matters before the courts.
“Commentary upon, and prejudgment of intended evidence not even produced before the court, much less assessed by it, is capable of impeding or prejudicing the course of justice in any proceedings and should be made with great care to avoid doing so,” he said.
That warning was not aimed at the parties in this case or any particular group or person but was made generally with the aim of ensuring a fair trial of the issues, he said.
Earlier, the court was told recordings of conversations between gardaí and journalists related to the case had been transcribed by a large number of gardaí in a very extensive operation which had been ongoing since February.
Part of the claims by Mr Bailey and his partner Jules Thomas in their separate actions for damages against the State was that the media was used against them, Mr Giblin noted. His side now had a list involving hundreds of communications with journalists and had not been aware the communication was “of that nature”.
It seemed the State defendants would not be asserting privilege over the material which would be helpful, he added.
