Bomb victims' relatives refused inquiry files

RELATIVES OF victims of the Dublin and Monaghan bombings of 1974 are not entitled to the release of documents from the 2007 MacEntee…

RELATIVES OF victims of the Dublin and Monaghan bombings of 1974 are not entitled to the release of documents from the 2007 MacEntee inquiry into the atrocities, a High Court judge has ruled.

Mr Justice Roderick Murphy said the relatives had failed to establish disclosure of the inquiry’s archive was “either relevant or necessary” in the context of their legal action aimed at securing a sworn public inquiry into the bombings.

The judge said he was satisfied the archive is covered by statutory privilege prohibiting its disclosure to the relatives.

The case arose from a decision last May by the Master of the High Court, who deals with a range of pre-trial and other matters, to order the Taoiseach, Ireland and the Attorney General to release the MacEntee documents.

READ MORE

Master Edmund Honohan granted the order to relatives Martha O’Neill, Elizabeth O’Brien and Frank Massey, saying they may “just” have a case (for a sworn inquiry) where the possibility of success could not altogether be ruled out. In their action seeking a full criminal investigation into the bombings in which 34 people were killed, the relatives have claimed their rights under Article 40.3 of the Constitution and Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights entitle them to a sworn public inquiry.

The State had appealed the master’s disclosure order to the High Court and after a hearing last December, Mr Justice Murphy reserved his decision.

Yesterday, the judge said the relatives had not focused their claim for disclosure on a narrow number of documents relating to the precise legal issues in their main proceedings, but had simply sought the entirety of the MacEntee commission archive.

He said the court could not accede to the relatives’ submission the State should be required, at the very least, list the documents in the archive and specifically identify any claim of privilege being made. This would constitute a dilution of the confidentiality promised by Mr MacEntee to those who provided the information, the judge said. That confidentiality was essential to the discharge of the functions of a private statutory inquiry, and statutory privilege prevented discovery of the MacEntee commission’s archive.

The court also could not direct the State to disclose any evidence given or the contents of any documents produced by witnesses to the McEntee inquiry.