CCTV footage from a pub run by a Sligo councillor who is charged with Public Order offences arising from a Garda inspection of the premises will not be handed over to the prosecution, Sligo District Court was told.

Mr. Joseph Barnes, B.L. for Councillor Jim McGarry, Twin Oaks, Oakfield, who along with his wife Louise and daughter, Aideen face a number of summonses, told Judge Kevin Kilraine that there was CCTV footage from the alleged incident obtained from cameras located on the premises, Mooney's, Maugheraboy.

However, the footage was the property of the defendant and it was not the defence's intention to give it to the Gardai in advance of the hearing of the case, said Mr. Barnes, who was instructed by Mr. Mark Mullaney, solicitor.

Mr. Barnes told the court it had taken him six and a half hours to view the tapes and take notes and he suggested that the case, when it comes to hearing, would take two days.

Labour Party councillor McGarry is charged with resisting Garda James Duffy in the execution of his duty at Mooney's, Maugheraboy on March 10th 2009 and with engaging in threatening, abusive and insulting behaviour on the same occasion.

He is also charged with selling and exposing for sale and keeping for sale, beer and spirits without being duly licensed to sell such liqueur.

Clr. McGarry's wife, Louise and daughter, Aideen, are charged with wilfully obstructing Garda Thomas Griffin on the same occasion and with engaging in threatening, abusive and insulting behaviour.

On behalf of the Gardai, Inspector Paul Kilcoyne made an application at Sligo Court last Thursday for disclosure of the CCTV footage.

The Inspector said he was obliged to make the application as the defence was going to rely upon it. Given what Mr. Barnes said he wondered whether the court would set aside six and a half hours to view the tapes. He added that the Gardai wanted to view the tape in its entirety.

In reply to Judge Kevin Kilraine, Mr. Barnes said the defence wasn't prepared to provide the tapes voluntarily.

The Judge said there was no onus on the defence to provide evidence and while the State had certain powers it could invoke to seize matters he believed "off the top of my head" that it could not seize CCTV material.

However, he said it might make good sense in the advance of the hearing to produce the CCTV to the prosecution but he would leave it up to the defence to decide.

The Judge added that in the event of it not being handed over, the prosecution would be afforded every opportunity on the day of the hearing for a further adjournment if necessary.

Mr. Barnes said that while the State might be obliged to seek out the footage it was not entitled to seize it.

Judge Kilraine said the Inspector was right to make the application and this had now been refused by the defence.

"If the prosecution seeks an adjournment it will be entitled to it to deal with any difficulty that arises from that CCTV and will be allowed call rebuttal evidence if required," he said.

Mr. Barnes said the reason he will not be disclosing the CCTV is because it gave rise to evidential conflicts.

"I'm entitled to refuse," he said.

Judge Kilraine said he was just outlining that the possible consequences of that refusal could well be an adjournment on the day of the hearing.

Inspector Kilcoyne said that if the footage was to be used it was his application that it be viewed in its entirety by the State. This was his application.

Mr. Barnes, who rejected any suggestion that there would be any selective editing of the tapes, said it would not take six and a half hours to view. There were three cameras and each had 20 minutes of tape. He had stopped the tapes while viewing them and made notes.

The case was adjourned to September 9th next for mention to fix a date for hearing. Judge Kilraine said it would need a special sitting and was informed by Mr. Barnes it could take two days.