A former tax inspector, who with his son and daughter is suing the State arising from the conduct of the Garda investigation into the murder of his wife, is entitled to obtain certain documents but not others in the possession of gardaí, the High Court has ruled.
Mr Justice Murphy said the court will assess at a later date the relevance of certain documents sought by Mr James Livingstone, of "The Moorings," Malahide, Co Dublin, his son, Conor, and daughter, Tara Beauchamp, which documents include the Garda investigation file into the murder of Mr Livingstone's wife, Grace.
The Livingstones' action is against the Minister for Justice, Ireland and the Attorney General. Mr Livingstone is claiming damages for alleged false imprisonment, abuse of legal process, abuse of power and/or misfeasance of public office, conspiracy and other matters. All the plaintiffs are claiming damages for intentional or negligent infliction of emotional suffering, negligence, breach of duty and breach of constitutional rights.
When the case was before Mr Justice Murphy in January last, Mr John Rogers SC, for Mr Livingstone, said his client was exonerated by gardaí in an RTÉ Prime Time programme of the murder of his wife in 1992.
Counsel said it had been accepted by gardaí that Mr Livingstone was in the company of Mr Art O'Connor on the occasion of his wife's death. He had no part in the brutal murder of his wife, the court was told.
Giving judgment on the application for documents to be used in the main action yesterday, the judge said documents in category 1-4 - which include the Garda investigation files into Mrs Livingstone's death - should be assessed by the court.
He said the defendants had agreed they would make limited discovery of documents under category 5 documents relating to media releases and briefings. He said category 6 documents - also relating to media release and briefings, in particular with regard to a Prime Time programme - were unduly extensive.
Mr Justice Murphy said the State had consented to the discovery of documents in some other categories. However, it objected to disclosure of category 9 documents.
He adjourned the case to April 30th to give the sides time to consider the judgment.