The High Court has refused the State’s application to dismiss Conrad Sugg’s claim over an alleged 2002 assault in Mountjoy Prison, but warned that the case must now proceed without further delay.
Mr Sugg alleges that fellow inmates attacked him and slashed his face, neck and wrist while he was in prison. The judgment stressed that the allegations remain unproven. The pleaded account says he was treated at the Mater Hospital and left with extensive facial scarring; those injury details have not been established at trial.
The State parties applied in June 2016 to strike out the proceedings for want of prosecution and for inordinate and inexcusable delay. The case began in 2002. In an earlier application, the High Court refused to dismiss it in July 2013, finding the delay to that point inordinate but excusable. The judge said he had to assess the whole period of delay afresh, while treating the earlier decision as relevant.
Mr Sugg said he had instructed a solicitor in 2002 and that the case initially progressed. He said he could not afford an expert report, and that his parents borrowed money from a credit union so he could pay €1,140 towards it in January 2012. He alleged the report was never obtained and the money was later returned. He also said he had not intended to withdraw the claim and believed his former solicitor had served him poorly.
For the State, a solicitor cited the retirement of senior prison staff, possible problems with witness recollection and the burden of defending old proceedings. The judge considered that prejudice limited: the identified witnesses were not said to have died, and contemporary prison records appeared to exist.
The court held that the delay was inordinate but excusable, taking account of Mr Sugg’s limited means, past drug addiction and personal difficulties. It also concluded that the State had not shown that continuing the case created a real risk of an unfair trial or unjust result. The balance of justice favoured allowing the proceedings to continue, though the claim may or may not ultimately succeed.
The court declined the State’s requested relief. It adjourned the matter for two weeks so Mr Sugg’s legal advisers could propose an expedited sequence of steps, after which the court would hear the parties and make a case management order. The judge warned that Mr Sugg had reached the limits of the latitude available and that any further delay could put the case at risk.