The High Court withdrew Paul Reid’s claims against the Garda Commissioner and State defendants from the jury, ruling there was no legal basis on which it could find for him. Mr Justice Hedigan delivered the decision on 9 May 2014.
The claims arose from Reid’s arrest under a bench warrant issued after a theft at Dublin’s Northside Shopping Centre on 20 May 2010. The judgment said the warrant was lawfully issued but in error because Reid had been impersonated. He was arrested on 9 February 2011.
Reid alleged that the arrest was unlawful because of delay in executing the warrant, the force used to enter his flat and the use of handcuffs. The judge rejected each basis. He said he knew of no authority making an eight-month delay sufficient to render the arrest unlawful. On Reid’s own evidence, the gardaí had knocked, he did not answer, and they used the only means open to them to enter and execute the warrant. The gardaí did not know of the mistaken identity when they handcuffed him, the judge said, and the circumstances did not permit a jury reasonably to find that the handcuffing was unreasonable.
The judge also rejected the false imprisonment claim. He found the arrest and subsequent detention were authorised: Reid was brought before the District Court and released on bail by court order. His obligation to attend court three times did not amount to the total restraint of liberty required for false imprisonment.
On malicious prosecution, the judge said the original prosecution had begun in good faith, with reasonable cause, after a theft and the apprehension of the alleged thief. He criticised an “unacceptable delay” in clarifying whether Reid was the perpetrator once the gardaí accepted there was a real possibility of mistaken identity. But he said that failure did not give rise to an issue for the jury and could not turn the lawful execution of the warrant into malicious prosecution.
The defamation claim also could not proceed, the judge ruled. The bench warrant and court proceedings were protected by absolute privilege, and the statement that a warrant existed in respect of Reid was correct.
The ruling concerned whether the claims could be left to the jury. The judgment withdrew the case from the jury; it did not report a jury verdict on the claims.