Garda contact to media ‘beyond belief’ during du Plantier investigation

The level of contact between gardaí and journalists during the investigation into the 1996 murder of French filmmaker Sophie Toscan du Plantier was “beyond belief”, the High Court heard yesterday.

Lawyers for Ian Bailey said there had been an extraordinary level of communication of which they were not previously aware.

Recordings of conversations between journalists and gardaí to be disclosed to Mr Bailey for his action for damages over alleged wrongful arrest by gardaí investigating the murder in West Cork indicate there was an “extraordinary” level of contact “beyond belief”, Mr Justice John Hedigan was told.

Martin Giblin SC, for Mr Bailey, who has always denied any involvement in the murder, said his side had been unaware of the existence of the recordings and lawyers for the State hadalso said they were unaware of it but it “seemed someone in An Garda Síochána was”. The material was “entirely new” and indicated “hundreds and hundreds” of conversations with journalists, he said.

Counsel said 12 boxes of documents had been received by his side in the last two weeks and it had also been confirmed to them there were 130 recordings of “differential quality”.

These included recordings of conversations between gardaí and journalists. Transcripts of those had been made and his side would also want to inspect the actual recordings, he said.

His side has also written to the DPP seeking the identities of three senior gardaí referred to by former DPP Eamonn Barnes in a document expressing concern about aspects of the Garda investigation into the murder. That document had been put before the Supreme Court in 2012 in extradition proceedings concerning Mr Bailey.

A court order may be required before such disclosure can be made by the DPP, Mr Giblin said.

Discovery orders were previously made in the case and the matter was before Mr Justice Hedigan yesterday to deal with an application by Mr Bailey for an order striking out the State’s defence to his action for damages over failure to comply with orders requiring discovery be carried out within certain time limits.

However, because of the developments concerning disclosure of documents, the application did not proceed and the State is to continue to make disclosure. The matter will be mentioned again in May but the full hearing of Mr Bailey’s action, which will be before a High Court judge and jury, is unlikely to take place until late this year at the earliest.

Paul O’Higgins SC, for the State, sought an adjournment to facilitate the continuing disclosure.

Mr Justice Hedigan noted the matter dated back to 1996-7 and Mr Bailey was anxious his case be heard, but the discovery process was continuing and he would adjourn the matter.

While stressing the courts “do not seek to restrict vigorous discussion by the media or the public of matters of great interest” the judge issued “a word of caution” relating to discussion by the media and public of matters before the courts.