Man’s action over witness protection programme to be heard in private

A man’s legal action over the State’s alleged failure to live up to promises made to him under the witness protection programme must be heard in private, the High Court has ruled.

The man is suing the Garda Commissioner and State over alleged failures to abide by an agreement, allegedly made when he agreed to give evidence against two men, to give him a new identity and relocate him to another country.

Mr Justice Paul Gilligan ruled the case should be heard in private to protect gardaí and others involved in administering the programme from being targeted by subversives and organised crime gangs.

Jeopardised
The involvement of other countries to which witnesses are relocated could also be jeopardised if that was discussed in court, the judge said.

The State parties had asked the court to order the action be heard in private but the man opposed that application, arguing a public hearing was necessary to vindicate his rights and that of his family.

Mr Justice Gilligan said the court was very conscious the witness protection programme was a means of ensuring the State could provide adequate protection to witnesses who aid prosecution authorities in trials of people involved in subversive and organised crime.

As the Oireachtas had not seen the need to put the witness protection programme on a statutory footing, it was not possible to provide for any legislative exceptions to the constitutional requirement (Article 34.1) for justice to be administered in public, the judge said.

Exceptional
The trend of legal authorities to date was that orders directing the private hearing of cases should only be made in exceptional circumstances but this was an exceptional case.

He ruled the State’s right to a fair trial would be impeded if the case was heard in public. He also ruled directions from the trial judge would be insufficient to address concerns about disclosure of information.

The court must be conscious of the situation in Ireland pertaining to subversives and organised crime, he said. A private hearing did not compromise in any way the man’s right to a fair trial, he found.