McAnaspie family wins the right to access HSE files

THE family of the late Daniel McAnaspie will be able to access files relating to his treatment while in HSE care following a High Court ruling.

Mr Justice George Birmingham yesterday ruled the district court had the power to authorise the release of documents relating to the teenager, who suffered a violent death last year.

Mr McAnaspie, aged 17, went missing while in the care of the HSE. His body was found on May 13, 2010. He had died as a result of stabbing and a criminal investigation into his death is ongoing.

Following the discovery of his remains, Daniel’s sister, Cathriona, had applied to the district court for disclosure to her of all reports prepared by Daniel’s guardian ad litem — the court-appointed guardian for a person in care.

She had also sought the lifting of in camera restrictions regarding the use and publication of the reports. Under the Childcare Act, a child who is in care cannot be identified and cases must be heard in private, and cannot be reported.

However, Ms McAnaspie argued that the care order in respect of her brother came to an end at his death. Mr Justice Birmingham noted she brought the application in order to ascertain more about Daniel’s life circumstances from the reports.

He said Cathriona believed the reports may reveal the health authorities failed in their obligation to take general measures to diminish the opportunities for children in care to harm themselves, or come to harm.

A number of media organisations made separate applications, seeking to be allowed to report on Ms McAnaspie’s application on the grounds that it was of public interest.

The district court then referred the matter to the High Court, and yesterday, Mr Justice George Birmingham ruled that the district court was entitled to make decisions regarding the release of such documents and the reporting on such applications.

The HSE had opposed the applications by Ms McAnaspie and the media organisations. The HSE said it believed the district court did not have jurisdiction to waive or modify the in camera rule.

In his judgment, Mr Justice Birmingham said the care order granted in respect of Daniel McAnaspie had ended on his death.

He also ruled that the district court was entitled to modify or lift the in camera rule in order to allow Ms McAnaspie’s application. He said a statutory imperative that proceedings of a particular nature be held in private did not imply that there is an absolute embargo on the disclosure of evidence in all circumstances.

He said reports created by the guardian ad litem had been prepared for the benefit of the court, therefore, the court was well placed to determine whether the reports should be disclosed.

Mr Justice Birmingham noted that the guardian ad litem was supporting the family’s application.