An attempt by a man whose daughter and two granddaughters died in the 1974 Dublin bombings to gain access to the files of the Garda investigation into the atrocities has been rejected by the Supreme Court. Mr Joseph Patrick Doyle had sought production and discovery of the files so he might use them in his case against the British government, which is before the European Court of Human Rights. He alleges the RUC failed to investigate properly the events leading up to the bombings. His application was opposed by the Garda Commissioner.
Thirty-three people died in the no-warning car bombings in Dublin and Monaghan on May 17th, 1974. No one has been prosecuted in relation to the bombings which are believed to have been carried out by loyalists. A number of media investigations have claimed the loyalists were assisted by British agents.
Among the dead were Mr Doyle's daughter, Ms Anne O'Brien, and his granddaughters, Jacqueline and Anne-Marie O'Brien.
Mr Doyle was not in court yesterday. The High Court, in a decision of August last year, rejected Mr Doyle's application for discovery of documents. He appealed that decision to the Supreme Court and the five-judge court yesterday dismissed the appeal.
Delivering the court's judgment, Mr Justice Barrington said Mr Doyle, arising out of the 1974 bombings, had lodged a complaint against the UK in the European Court of Human Rights. He had complained that the UK was in breach of its obligations under Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights in that the RUC failed to take the necessary and appropriate steps to investigate events in Northern Ireland "associated with and leading up to the unlawful killing of the complainant's daughter and granddaughters" or to trace and prosecute offenders in the North who were a party to the events leading up to the unlawful killings.
The judge said the form of the complaint was important because Mr Doyle was not complaining of the killings themselves - such a complaint would be statute-barred - but of the alleged continuing failure of the RUC to investigate the matter properly or to follow up matters allegedly brought to its attention by the Garda.
The ECHR had informed Mr Doyle his complaint had been received and registered and that a member of the Commission, acting as rapporteur, would carry out a preliminary examination and report on the question of its admissibility.
The judge noted Mr Doyle, in support of his claim, had sent the ECHR a videotape of a television programme entitled Hidden Hand: The Forgotten Massacre, broadcast by Channel 4 TV in July 1993. He also submitted a letter containing replies from the RUC Assistant Chief Constable to five questions put to the RUC by Mr Doyle's solicitor.
Mr Doyle had established the Garda had documents relating to the 1974 atrocities, the judge said. The Garda Commissioner opposed producing any documents at all "on a point of principle". The Commissioner maintained it was of paramount importance that information gathered by the Garda in the course of a criminal investigation should remain confidential.
The judge said the sole object of the present action was discovery. The High Court had jurisdiction to entertain an action for sole discovery but this had been exercised only in cases where the plaintiff could prove he had suffered a wrong but he was not, and the defendant was, in a position to establish the identity of the wrongdoer.
In the present case, Mr Doyle had made a complaint to the ECHR and was alleging the wrongdoer is a sovereign government over which the Irish Supreme Court has no jurisdiction, Mr Justice Barrington said.
An action for sole discovery was a plenary action which must proceed on the basis of evidence or agreed facts. No evidence had been produced to show the UK had been guilty of any wrongdoing or to support Mr Doyle's allegations. This was therefore not an appropriate case for sole discovery. The judge found the court should insist on evidence that a wrong had been established before making an order for sole discovery. He said Mr Doyle had apparently, in his complaint to the ECHR, produced sufficient material for that court to register his complaint and consider whether it should inquire into the matter further. But the procedures before an Irish court were different. Mr Doyle had produced no evidence admissible in an Irish court to establish even a prima-facie case that the UK has been guilty of any wrongdoing.
The court made no order for costs.
