The High Court struck out Christopher Griffin’s claims for defamation and negligent misstatement arising from his 2015 arrest and prosecution, and stayed his malicious prosecution claim until he exhausts available options to overturn his conviction.
In a judgment delivered on 26 January 2018, Mr Justice Tony O’Connor dealt with the defendants’ application to dismiss or strike out the claims. A separate motion by Griffin seeking judgment in default of defence was to be considered after that application; the judgment does not record a decision on that motion.
Griffin’s statement of claim concerned his arrest on 25 April 2015 after he went to Marlborough Place, Dublin, where his mother’s car had been clamped. He said he brought tools to remove the clamp because his mother could not afford the release fee. The statement said the tools were unused, and disputed the Garda’s account that Griffin had been using them on the clamp chains. Griffin also alleged that, during the later prosecution, he was prevented from presenting physical evidence that the clamp was undamaged. These were claims and submissions described in the judgment, not findings made in this application.
On malicious prosecution, the judge said the claim could not proceed unless Griffin first had his conviction overturned or set aside. The court stayed that part of the case while he exhausted available routes to seek an extension of time to appeal and, if permitted, pursued an appeal. If he succeeds in overturning the conviction, he may apply to lift the stay. Any application must include a revised statement of claim and identify how he proposes to present admissible evidence supporting the claim.
The court struck out the defamation claim. It held that the claim concerning statements made during the District Court prosecution was bound to fail in light of the statutory defence relied on by the defendants. The court also found that the claim about an alleged conversation between a Garda and a neighbour had not been pleaded with sufficient particularity.
The negligent misstatement claim was also struck out. The judge said Griffin did not allege that he relied on the Garda’s statement; his case was that the District Court judge had relied on it. The pleaded losses, including fines and medical expenses, did not meet the requirements identified by the court for the claim.
The judgment’s final order described all claims as struck out while placing a stay on the malicious prosecution claim. It gave Griffin liberty to apply to set aside that stay only if his conviction is set aside and he meets the specified conditions. The court did not overturn or determine the validity of the conviction in these proceedings.