The High Court has struck out several claims in a case brought by a severely autistic man over his arrest and detention, while allowing claims concerning constitutional protection of the person and bodily integrity to remain for trial.
In a judgment delivered on 11 April 2014, Mr Justice Hogan considered a motion by the State defendants to remove claims they said were legally unsustainable or duplicated other claims. The case, brought by D.F. through his testamentary guardian and next friend, concerns an incident on 24 September 2010. The judgment does not determine whether the arrest or the treatment alleged was lawful.
The parties’ accounts of the incident differ. The guardian’s account was that D.F. was unlawfully arrested outside his grandparents’ home and taken to a Garda station without an attempt to contact either parent. The State defendants said a member of the public reported seeing him chase two women with a large stick or tree branch, though neither was struck. They said Gardaí arrested him under section 12 of the Mental Health Act 2001 after an officer could not obtain his name or other details.
The judgment records that D.F. was handcuffed and taken to the station. His mother arrived shortly after 5.30pm, and his father arrived about 20 minutes later. D.F. was released at about 6.05pm after his father, a registered medical practitioner, confirmed his severe autism. The plaintiff alleged that the restraints caused additional and unnecessary suffering and amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment. The defendants expressly denied that allegation.
Hogan J struck out the claim for damages for breach of the constitutional right to liberty, finding that the tort of false imprisonment provided a complete remedy for that right. He also struck out the claims under the European Convention on Human Rights Act 2003, the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights and the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. He held that the ECHR claims added nothing to the remaining remedies; the Charter did not apply to this arrest under domestic law; and the UN Convention had not been incorporated into Irish domestic law.
The constitutional claims concerning protection of the person, bodily integrity and privacy were not struck out. Hogan J said it was possible that assault and battery claims would not fully vindicate those rights, particularly if D.F.’s condition meant he could not have apprehended a battery before it occurred. That possibility was left for full hearing; the court made no finding on it.
The judge also struck out the claims for declarations about the arrest’s legality, saying declaratory relief was inappropriate and potentially confusing in an action to be tried by a jury. The ruling addressed which claims could remain in the case. It did not decide the underlying allegations. The judgment records that the action was to be tried by a jury, with legality-of-arrest issues reserved to the trial judge.