The High Court has struck out Richard Bennett’s claim against the Garda Síochána Complaints Board, finding that his amended statement of claim did not set out facts capable of supporting a cause of action against it.
In a judgment delivered on 10 October 2011, Mr Justice Ryan said the board was entitled to immunity from suit for decisions made while exercising its statutory functions in good faith. He held that allegations of deliberate or reckless conduct, without a factual basis for inferring the state of mind alleged, were not enough to overcome that protection.
The application concerned the claim against the board alone. Other defendants named in Bennett’s proceedings were not the subject of the motion decided in this judgment. The board argued that challenges to its decisions should have been brought through the statutory appeal process or by judicial review, and that the proceedings appeared to be out of time. The judge’s decision focused on the pleaded case and the board’s immunity; the judgment does not say that the court determined the limitation argument.
The case arose after an incident at the first defendant’s public house, followed by a Garda investigation and Bennett’s complaint about the conduct of the investigating Gardaí. The board’s chief executive issued a report, which Bennett received in redacted form. He did not appeal the report’s findings or seek judicial review.
Bennett’s claim alleged failures in the handling of his complaint, including that the board neglected to obtain video evidence and was indifferent to missing evidence. He also alleged defamation and misconduct. Justice Ryan said the pleading offered conclusions such as “wilfully neglected” and “recklessly indifferent” without underlying facts. He found that complaints about perceived errors in an investigator’s report likewise did not provide facts supporting allegations of corruption.
The judge also found that the pleaded defamation claims did not disclose a cause of action: the words complained of were not alleged to be untrue, and the reports were made on occasions he considered privileged. He said allegations of negligence would not be actionable in this context, and adding claims of malice without supporting facts would improperly shift the burden to the defendant.
Justice Ryan acknowledged Bennett was a lay litigant and said courts should take care not to shut out a genuine claim because of procedural defects. He nevertheless concluded that no facts were pleaded that could establish malicious motive and ordered that the claim against the board be struck out. The judgment did not decide the claims against the other defendants.