district court discovery

mountainyman

What are the rules when applying for discovery in district court cases.

MM

Our man in Havana

What sort of case?

Gobán Saor

In a criminal case (prosecuted summarily) you can apply for a "Gary Doyle" order. This will be granted automatically and it requires the prosecutor of the offence (usually a Garda) to disclose to you all the evidence he has available to him, including evidence he does not intend to present at trial. Its like a book of evidence for a circuit court trial.

You do risk pissing off the judge as a smart-arse.

Our man in Havana

Is it as simple as saying to the judge, "I wish to apply for a Gary Doyle order to disclose all evidence in this case against me"?

johnnysmurfman

Yeah, it's that simple. Discovery however, given it's true meaning, applies to civil cases and is governed by the Rules of the District Court, Rule 46A. If it's criminal then you are entitled to view the evidence against you before decising how to plead. It's usual to ask for a Gary Doyle order featuring all statements and cctv footage if there is any. This is normally done on the first day in court.

Jo King

Gobán Saor wrote: »

In a criminal case (prosecuted summarily) you can apply for a "Gary Doyle" order. This will be granted automatically

Try asking for it in Tallaght District Court.

wyndham

Is it the same as evidence precis?

Jo King

yes. also known as disclosure order and statements order.

sh_o

mountainyman wrote: »

What are the rules when applying for discovery in district court cases.

MM

In a Civil context, Order 46 A of the District Court Rules (S.I. No. 285 of 1999) contains the procedure etc. This is available on courts.ie.

UrbanFox

I think that you can get discovery against parties who are not involved in a set of proceedings as well if you need it.

johnnyskeleton

mountainyman wrote: »

What are the rules when applying for discovery in district court cases.

MM

1. Speak as loudly as you can.
2. Speak as quickly as you can.
3. Praying shortly beforehand sometimes helps.

A much better option is to agree discovery with the other side before court.

Gobán Saor wrote: »

In a criminal case (prosecuted summarily) you can apply for a "Gary Doyle" order. This will be granted automatically and it requires the prosecutor of the offence (usually a Garda) to disclose to you all the evidence he has available to him, including evidence he does not intend to present at trial. Its like a book of evidence for a circuit court trial.

Not necessarily. Unlike with indictable offences, the state is not under a general duty to disclose their case in advance. It is judged on a case by case basis. It is not granted automatically and (as Jo King points out) is sometimes refused. For example, a gary doyle order will often be refused for very minor offences (especially those which do not carry a custodial sentence).

In any event, the duty is only to disclose the prosecution case; it is not a duty to disclose all evidence he has available, although if a particular piece of exculpatory evidence is known to exist, the court has a discretion to order it (e.g. if the accused knows a statement was taken from someone who will get him off).

Bond-007 wrote: »

Is it as simple as saying to the judge, "I wish to apply for a Gary Doyle order to disclose all evidence in this case against me"?

Abbreviated to "I seek a Gary Doyle order" or just "Judge, Gary Doyle". Better yet, say "Statements and custody records". If there is a possibility of exhibits, CCTV or a video of interview, it's no harm to mention these either.

Jo King wrote: »

Try asking for it in Tallaght District Court.

sh_o

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Not necessarily. Unlike with indictable offences, the state is not under a general duty to disclose their case in advance. It is judged on a case by case basis. It is not granted automatically and (as Jo King points out) is sometimes refused. For example, a gary doyle order will often be refused for very minor offences (especially those which do not carry a custodial sentence).

Surely there is a duty on the prosecution to disclose their case in advance and if they didn't and the court refused to grant a Gary Doyle Order there are strong grounds for judicial review?

johnnyskeleton

sh_o wrote: »

Surely there is a duty on the prosecution to disclose their case in advance and if they didn't and the court refused to grant a Gary Doyle Order there are strong grounds for judicial review?

Strong grounds for judicial review, but such JRs would not always be successful. It is not the law that the prosecution must disclose their case in advance in all summary matters (it is for indictable offences, together with the duty to disclose all other relevant material).

In certain circumstances (depending on several factors, particularly the seriousness of the offence) the state will be required to provide the statements or a precis of the evidence upon which they will rely. But not every case. You probably wouldn't get a gary doyle for (for example) speeding, unrenewed dog licence, intoxication in a public place. On the other hand, you are highly likely to get one for an offence where there is a substantial risk of imprisonment (e.g. assault, burglary, repeat offences, etc).