James Walsh can sue State over alleged malicious prosecution

This report is a localnews.ie summary based on public court reporting and records; sources are listed below.

The High Court has allowed James Walsh’s malicious prosecution claim against the State to proceed, with Mr Justice Paul Gilligan refusing a strike-out application. The proceedings were reported on 17 April 2015. A jury acquitted Mr Walsh in 2007, following two trials, of charges alleging threats to kill and cause serious harm to journalist Paul Williams.

Mr Walsh seeks punitive and exemplary damages against the Garda Commissioner, Ireland and the Attorney General. He alleges the offences never occurred, the authorities knew this from the outset and they were impossible for him to commit. The defendants deny the claims, describe his allegations against gardaí as unsubstantiated and say the DPP decided to prosecute him.

The defendants sought dismissal for want of prosecution and inordinate delay. They argued that Mr Walsh had failed to advance his action promptly and twice failed to attend court, resulting in his notice of trial being struck out. His statement of claim was served in October 2009; a defence was filed in July 2010.

Mr Walsh cited health problems and not securing legal representation until 2014 as reasons for delay. The defendants disputed those explanations. Represented by solicitor Anne Fitzgibbon, he argued that the balance of justice favoured a trial and that the defendants had shown no prejudice from the delay.

The judge found the delay inordinate and inexcusable, with no valid reason given and no allowance warranted for the period without a solicitor. However, he was not satisfied that the defendants’ ability to defend the claim had been compromised enough to imperil a fair trial.

He also noted that the defendants delivered their defence only after Mr Walsh sought judgment in default, and could have sought dismissal earlier. Considering both sides’ conduct and the absence of demonstrated prejudice, he refused the strike-out orders and said the case should proceed to a hearing before a judge and jury at the earliest opportunity.