The High Court has struck out a plaintiff’s civil proceedings against the State, the Garda Commissioner and an anonymised Garda officer, and refused his application for an injunction restraining the officer. The civil judgment does not determine the separate criminal charges against the plaintiff, which remain due to proceed to trial on indictment.
The defendants sought to dismiss the proceedings as disclosing no reasonable cause of action or as an abuse of process. The plaintiff also sought interlocutory relief to restrain the officer from what he described as “besetting and/or harassing” him. Justice Stack heard the applications in camera and anonymised the parties because the case referred to private family proceedings and children.
The plaintiff’s claims concerned, among other matters, the officer’s involvement in an investigation, statements made during family proceedings, and Garda bail checks. The court held that statements made to a court-appointed psychologist, witnesses or in court were protected by absolute privilege for defamation purposes. It found that the statement of claim did not plead the elements needed for negligent misstatement, including a representation to the plaintiff on which he relied.
The court also said malicious prosecution claims relating to family-law orders could not succeed on the pleaded facts: the complainants had initiated those proceedings, and the orders sought had been granted. The criminal proceedings for which the plaintiff awaits trial had not concluded, so the required element that proceedings be unsuccessful was absent. The court noted that the officer was not involved in several earlier arrests and proceedings described in the claim.
Two issues initially appeared arguable: whether an arrest warrant for an alleged breach of bail conditions had been signed as required by the District Court Rules, and whether bail checks could amount to misfeasance in public office if motivated by malice. But the plaintiff’s affidavit attributed the alleged malice behind the checks to a complainant, not the defendants. The court also found that the claim for damages for stress and mental trauma lacked the required Personal Injuries Assessment Board authorisation, and that no cause of action arising from any warrant defect had been identified.
Justice Stack said she had “a very strong suspicion” that the proceedings’ real aim was to impede the criminal prosecution, but struck out the case on the separate ground that the claims were doomed to fail. She refused the injunction because the plaintiff had not shown a fair question to be tried. She also refused his application concerning the use of capital letters in the case title, while ordering that the title be amended to remove the words and brackets that departed from the prescribed court form.