The DPP is to support the Criminal Assets Bureau's refusal to hand over to the Flood Tribunal documents seized from the former Dublin assistant county manager, Mr George Redmond.
However, the Attorney General, representing the public, will argue at a High Court hearing next month that the documents should be produced.
Mr Justice Geoghegan yesterday fixed June 15th for the hearing of the CAB's claim against production of the documents which it seized from Mr Redmond.
He also agreed, "with some hesitation", to allow the DPP to be a notice party in the action.
Last week, the CAB got leave from the court to challenge the tribunal's order directing it to produce the Redmond documents. Chief Supt Fachtna Murphy, head of the CAB, claimed privilege over the documents on the grounds that investigations would be prejudiced if the documents were produced.
He also stated that on February 19th Mr Redmond was arrested by CAB officers at Dublin Airport, where certain material and documents were seized. On the same day, CAB officers searched Mr Redmond's home and seized further documents.
Last week, Mr Justice Geoghegan rejected an application by the DPP to join the CAB as a notice party to the action. However, on Monday, Mr Edward Comyn SC appeared for the DPP and renewed the application.
Mr Justice Geoghegan reserved judgement on the DPP's application to yesterday.
He said that when the application on behalf of the DPP was made he had stated that the CAB was the party directly involved and had made the argument to the tribunal that the documents should not be produced.
It seemed, therefore, that the DPP should not be joined as a notice party, particularly in the context that he had played no part, nor had he sent a solicitor or counsel to the tribunal to argue that the documents should not be produced.
There was no investigation by the DPP at present. However, the DPP was concerned that the file would reach him and on that tentative basis was opposing the production of the documents.
Mr Justice Geoghegan said counsel for the DPP had asked the court on Monday to rethink the matter. He acknowledged that the issue was important and the DPP had also undertaken to pay his costs.
He said it seemed to him there were two issues before the tribunal related to whether it had jurisdiction to balance the public interest in the documents being disclosed against a prosecution being effectively proceeded with.
The first question was whether the tribunal had a jurisdiction to enter into that kind of balancing act and that was one point which would be raised in the judicial review. If the tribunal had jurisdiction, the second question related to the balancing act itself.
He said it was with some hesitation - and having regard to the view of the DPP that he had an interest in the matter and would bear his costs - that he would allow the DPP to be a notice party.
Mr James O'Reilly SC, for the Attorney General, who is representing the public interest, said the Attorney General believed the privilege issue had not been fully argued before the tribunal on behalf of the CAB.
The Attorney General felt the documents should go before the tribunal to allow the argument on privilege to take place.
The judge gave Mr Arthur Harris, solicitor for Mr Redmond, seven days to consider whether a notice opposing the production of the documents should be filed.