The High Court has refused an application by Ireland and the Attorney General to dismiss Martin Padden’s proceedings over alleged wrongdoing by members of An Garda Síochána. The court directed that the case continue with every expedition and warned that further delay could lead to a different result.
Mr Padden alleges that after he and his brothers were assaulted outside a pub in Geesala, Co Mayo, in 1999, he was assaulted by Gardaí, wrongfully arrested and imprisoned, and subjected to intimidation and harassment. His claims include malicious prosecution, which he says ended in acquittals, as well as alleged breaches of constitutional rights and other civil wrongs. The court stressed that all allegations remain unproven and are denied by the State.
The State sought dismissal for want of prosecution, arguing that delay was inordinate and inexcusable and threatened a fair trial. It focused in particular on a gap of about 1,100 days between the State’s defence, delivered in May 2012, and a letter seeking voluntary discovery received in June 2015. The State also sought a preliminary determination on limitation, but withdrew that part of its application at the hearing. The judgment made no finding on whether any claim is time-barred; the State may raise that issue at trial.
Mr Padden’s solicitor, Mr Gill, said legal work and preparation of proofs continued during the gap, Mr Padden underwent surgery in early 2013, and the lawyers accepted responsibility for any delay. The State argued that the explanation was inadequate and that memories could have faded, although it had not lost any essential witnesses or documents.
Applying the principles in *Primor plc v Stokes Kennedy Crowley*, Mr Justice Max Barrett said he had some doubt that the delay was inordinate in the circumstances and concluded it was not inexcusable. He found no evidence that key witnesses had impaired recollection and no specific prejudice from the roughly 1,100-day period. Even if the delay had been both inordinate and inexcusable, he said, there was no real risk of an unfair trial and justice favoured allowing the claim to proceed.
The court refused the reliefs sought at that time. It adjourned the State’s motion for one week so Mr Padden’s counsel could propose an expedited sequence of future steps, after which the court would hear the parties and make an appropriate order. The judge said there must be no further delay and described the warning as a “yellow card” that could turn red.