Judge adjourns motion in man’s wrongful-imprisonment action
This report is a localnews.ie summary based on public court reporting and records; sources are listed below.
Ms Justice Niamh Hyland adjourned a man’s motion for formal replies to written questions in his High Court action over alleged wrongful imprisonment. His rape prosecution had ended after disclosure of the complainant’s admitted fabrication of an earlier allegation against another man. The proceedings were reported on 19 November 2021.
The woman accused him of rape following a party in February 2009. He vehemently denied the allegation. Gardaí initially interviewed and released him without charge, and never re-interviewed him. He returned to his home country, then returned to Ireland a year later and was arrested and charged with rape.
The District Court refused bail because he represented a flight risk. The High Court granted bail conditional on residence in Ireland, daily signing with gardaí and a €10,000 cash surety. Unable to meet those terms, he remained in custody until June 2011.
Weeks before his scheduled trial, he and his solicitor received a file concerning the woman’s earlier allegation. She had admitted fabricating that claim against another man in 2007, attributing it to frustration arising from sexual abuse, family problems and alcohol issues. Prosecuting her for wasting Garda time was considered, but she was not charged because of her personal circumstances.
Shortly after that disclosure, the Director of Public Prosecutions entered a nolle prosequi, ending the rape prosecution and leading to his release.
His civil action began in 2012. Represented by solicitor Adrian Shanley, he sued the Garda Commissioner, the DPP, Ireland, the Attorney General, and the Governors of Cloverhill and the Midlands Prisons. He sought damages for alleged malicious prosecution, breach of constitutional rights, false imprisonment, negligence and conscious abuse of statutory powers. He claimed imprisonment cost him his job and relationship and left him without access to his daughter.
The defendants denied the claims, saying they performed public duties and that he had no permissible cause of action.
He sought interrogatory replies from the Garda Commissioner and DPP to obtain relevant admissions and information. The State argued that this would prejudice adjudication and avoid oral evidence and cross-examination, and that he had not explained their necessity or identified an evidential deficit.
The judge allowed the adjourned motion to be re-entered if he wished to proceed, requiring his lawyers to submit a sworn statement identifying the person to whom each interrogatory was directed.