THE HIGH Court has directed limited discovery of documents sought by businessman Jim Kennedy for his proceedings aimed at securing an order preventing his criminal trial concerning alleged corrupt payments for rezoning of lands in Carrickmines in Dublin in the 1990s.
Mr Justice John Hedigan, however, dismissed former Fine Gael politician Liam Cosgrave’s application for discovery of certain documents for use in his judicial review bid to stop his trial on charges also related to alleged corrupt payments.
In separate applications, both men sought discovery of material including correspondence, notes and memos between the DPP, the National Bureau of Criminal Investigation and the Criminal Assets Bureau relating to investigations into both of them.
The documents sought were referred to in affidavits by gardaí grounding the DPP’s statement of opposition to their judicial reviews.
In his ruling yesterday, Mr Justice Hedigan noted, in his judicial review proceedings, Mr Kennedy is seeking orders prohibiting his trial on the grounds of delay. Mr Kennedy had sought discovery of “everything” mentioned in the DPP’s affidavits but reference was not enough for a document to be discoverable, the judge said. Applications for discovery must be precise and specific, which Mr Kennedy’s application was not. However, the judge said he would order discovery of two sets of correspondence referred to but not exhibited in the affidavits.
That correspondence related to requests from the State to the Isle of Man authorities concerning Mr Kennedy and a direction by the DPP concerning the bringing of charges against Mr Kennedy arising out of former government press secretary Frank Dunlop’s prosecution. If the DPP wished to claim privilege over that material, he could do so when the matter came on for hearing later this month, the judge said.
In Mr Cosgrave’s case, the judge noted Mr Cosgrave claims his prosecution is unjust and an abuse of process because it arose from the same facts on which he was charged and subsequently pleaded guilty to in 2005 and 2006.
Mr Cosgrave had sought discovery of a number of items related to post 2005 matters but was not entitled to those categories of documents as they were not necessary for disposing fairly of his action, the judge ruled. He noted a number of categories of discovery had been agreed with the DPP prior to the commencement of Mr Cosgrave’s motion seeking discovery.
In their judicial reviews, both men want orders preventing their trials, listed for hearing at Dublin Circuit Court in October.