Hannigan v. D.P.P. [2001] IESC 10 (30 January 2001)

Hannigan v. D.P.P. [2001] IESC 10 (30 January 2001)

Privilege or immunity in respect of a document is waived when its contents are deployed in affidavit evidence by the party entitled to claim privilege, and no specific grounds for nondisclosure are advanced; thus, the applicant is entitled to inspection of the document.

Citation
[2001] IESC 10
Parties
Applicant/appellant: Thomas Hannigan; First Respondent: Director of Public Prosecutions; Second Respondent: His Honour Judge Peter Smithwick
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
30 January 2001
Procedural Posture
Appeal (judicial Review) / Supreme Court Judgment on Appeal From High Court Orders Regarding Discovery
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Discovery, Privilege, Public Interest Immunity, Judicial Review, Disclosure of Documents
Criminal Law Civil Procedure Discovery Privilege Public Interest Immunity Judicial Review Disclosure of Documents

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Thomas Hannigan

Applicant/appellant

Director of Public Prosecutions

First Respondent

His Honour Judge Peter Smithwick

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal (judicial Review) / Supreme Court Judgment on Appeal From High Court Orders Regarding Discovery

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to discovery and inspection of a letter from the Director of Public Prosecutions referenced in an affidavit, despite claims of privilege or public interest immunity.
  2. 2 Whether privilege or immunity is waived when the contents of a document are deployed in affidavit evidence.

Ratio Decidendi

Privilege or immunity in respect of a document is waived when its contents are deployed in affidavit evidence by the party entitled to claim privilege, and no specific grounds for nondisclosure are advanced; thus, the applicant is entitled to inspection of the document.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Production for inspection of the communication from the Director of Public Prosecutions referred to at paragraph 9 of the affidavit of Superintendent Brennan.