NI: Court of Appeal suggests new approach to disclosure in legacy cases

NI: Court of Appeal suggests new approach to disclosure in legacy cases

The Court of Appeal in Belfast has proposed a new approach to dealing with the issue of disclosure of documents in a legacy case held up by the PSNI’s lengthy redaction process.

Proceedings were brought in 2008 by John Flynn against the PSNI Chief Constable over an incident mentioned in the 2007 Ballast Report into police handling and management of informants.

The discovery of documents related to the report became a central issue to the case and, last year, Mr Justice Stephens criticised the Chief Constable for making no effort to comply with discovery orders.

However, the Court of Appeal today pinned the blame for delays on the PSNI’s “laborious and time-consuming” redaction process.

The Lord Chief Justice, Sir Declan Morgan, proposed that a new approach in any case where the existing approach to discovery or disclosure may give rise to onerous obligations or would prevent a case being dealt with expeditiously and fairly could be for the court to intervene with a view to finding a proportionate response, saving expense and ensuring that the parties are on an equal footing.

He said the “nature of that intervention will respond to the particular circumstances of the case”. In this case, he proposed the documents identified by the Chief Constable as potentially relevant “should be provided initially in unredacted form to the lawyers representing the Chief Constable so that an informed independent approach can be taken to the documents that actually need to be disclosed”.

Sir Declan added that any subsequent redaction “will also need to be assessed for its proportionality”.

He said: “There are likely to be considerable opportunities to avoid laborious and time-consuming redaction by providing a gist of the relevant information or alternatively making formal admissions in relation to the effective content of the documents.

“Since the documents are in the custody, power or possession of the applicant the onus to ensure a proportionate approach to disclosure rests primarily with those representing the Chief Constable.”

This being the case, the Court ordered:

  • That the documents relevant to the issues and facts identified by Colton J should be provided forthwith in unredacted form to the lawyers representing the applicant;
  • That those documents should be considered by the legal representatives in order to determine the most effective way in which to make disclosure;
  • That the parties should meet within 4 weeks of the delivery of this judgment to prepare a timeframe for the completion of the disclosure process; and
  • That this case should be listed before the Queen’s Bench Judge five weeks from today in order to determine whether any further extension of time for compliance should be given.
  • The Court also said its suggested approach seems appropriate for other similar cases and similar steps should now be taken in them.

    Share icon
    Share this article: