The Supreme Court has set aside High Court orders dismissing negligence claims by two women over alleged failures in criminal investigations and prosecutions, directing that both cases proceed to trial in the High Court.
In a judgment delivered on 3 November 2015, Mr Justice O’Donnell said the appeals were against decisions made after preliminary issues of law had been heard. No evidence had been heard and no facts had been found at that stage. The events described in the judgment were allegations that had to be assumed true, or capable of proof, for the preliminary issues.
The first plaintiff, identified as L.M., alleged that she reported rape by her father to gardaí in 1990, when she was 12. The judgment says nothing further happened in Ireland for six years. Her father was later tried and convicted, but the conviction was quashed on appeal. A retrial was prohibited following a successful application based on prosecutorial delay, ending the prosecution. L.M. alleged that the events left her with post-traumatic stress disorder and a feeling that she had been denied justice.
The second plaintiff, Belinda Lockwood, alleged that a man identified as J.W. raped her. At his trial, statements he had made in garda custody were excluded after his arrest was found to be unlawful. Lockwood claimed that an error by the arresting garda led to the loss of important evidence and caused her distress and loss. The judgment noted that the precise way the trial ended was unclear: the parties gave different accounts, though both said J.W. was acquitted.
The High Court had ruled that the defendants owed no private law duty of care in the circumstances. The Supreme Court did not decide whether such a duty existed, nor did it determine the underlying allegations or the claims for damages. Instead, it concluded the cases were too unclear and procedurally inadequate to provide a sound basis for resolving the complex legal questions, which could also involve constitutional and European Convention claims.
The Court allowed the appeals, set aside both High Court orders and directed that the cases proceed in the High Court. The judgment therefore returned the claims for further proceedings; it did not decide whether either plaintiff would ultimately succeed.