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 attracts 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 documents.
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.
They are seeking various orders and declarations the State is under a duty to carry out an investigation or public inquiry into the killing of their relatives: Edward O’Neill, John O’Brien, Anne-Marie O’Brien, Jacqueline O’Brien and Anna Massey.
They claim inquiries to date were inadequate, including those by the Garda, the Barron inquiry, an Oireachtas Committee and the most recent, that of the MacEntee Commission, whose sole member was senior counsel Patrick MacEntee.
At a minimum, the State should be required to list in a sworn statement the documents in the MacEntee archive over which it is claiming privilege, they said.
The State had opposed disclosure on the grounds of public interest. It was claimed release of the documents would pose a risk to life, endanger State security and breach assurances of confidentiality given by Mr MacEntee to those who provided the documents. The State has also argued the relatives do not have a case for 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.
Today, the judge said the relatives had not focussed 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 relative’s submission the State should be required, at the very least, list the documents in the achive and specifically identify any claim of privilege being made.
This would constitute a dilution of the confidentiality promised 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 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, the judge added.