A NORTHERN Ireland woman is suing the State, claiming there was negligent delay in the Attorney General's office in processing a request for the extradition of Brendan Smyth to the North, the High Court was told yesterday.
The woman, now in her 20s, is claiming that as a consequence, she sustained personal injury, including nervous shock and mental distress.
She is suing Ireland, the Attorney General and the Government of Ireland, who plead there is no cause of action and that the claim ought to be dismissed.
Before Mr Justice Geoghegan yesterday was a motion relating to an objection by the defendants to the production of a number of documents by them. Preliminary issues relating to the action are to come before the High Court later.
The judge said he was informed that it was intended to apply for a separate and preliminary issue to be tried as to whether the statement of claim disclosed a cause of action. The plaintiff's claim to production of the controversial documents was, of course, based on the assumption that she had a good cause of action.
That being so, it would be his (judge's) view that even if the plaintiff was entitled to production of the controversial documents, assuming there was a proper cause of action, the court ought not, as a matter of discretion, order such production unless and until the preliminary issue had been heard and determined in favour of the plaintiff. What he would be saying in the remainder of the judgment, would, therefore, be subject to that proviso.
Mr Justice Geoghegan, in his judgment on the motion before the court yesterday, said he was satisfied that there was a genuine issue of delay giving rise to a stateable and pleaded cause of action in the case and he would order production of the documents.
But he added, an order foil such production was a discretionary order and he did not intend to exercise that discretion until he had studied the outcome of any preliminary issues relating to liability which may be tried.
He said the action arose out of the "now famous" events surrounding the requested extradition to Northern Ireland of Brendan Smith, then accused of committing sexual offences with young persons in the North to which he had since pleaded guilty in the courts of that jurisdiction and been sentenced to prison.
The plaintiff was one of the victims of those offences.
In the civil action, the plaintiff sought to recover damages for the alleged injuries on grounds of negligence, breach of statutory duty, breach of duty and breach of constitutional rights.
A number of documents which the State was objecting to producing were listed. They included an original covering letter from the AG for UK and NI to the Irish AG dated May 4th, 1993; original confirmatory note from the AG for UK and NI dated May 4th, 1993; original statement of facts faxed statement of facts bearing working notes of Mr Matthew Russell and faxed statement of law bearing working notes of Mr Matthew Russell.
The judge said the plaintiff's solicitor, Mr Padraig Brennan, had explained in an affidavit why he believed the documents were relevant to the claim.
Mr Justice Geoghegan said he did not think it was in dispute that in the ordinary way these documents and others listed would be material to the matters in issue and would have to be produced. But the real issue between the parties was whether on grounds of public interest, the documents ought not in fact be produced.