The High Court has ruled that June Moore’s claim for damages over slopping out at Limerick Prison is time-barred and should be dismissed. The claim concerned her detention there from February 2003 to March 2004 and alleged breaches of constitutional and European Convention on Human Rights protections.
Ms Justice Siobhán Phelan delivered the ruling on 1 May 2024. She directed that the limitation issue be heard as a preliminary issue under Order 25, rule 1 of the Rules of the Superior Courts, then decided it on the papers before her. The court did not hear the underlying claim about prison conditions.
The proceedings began in October 2017, more than 13 years after Ms Moore’s release. The defendants argued that the constitutional damages claim was outside the six-year limit in the Statute of Limitations 1957, and that the Convention claim was outside the one-year limit under the European Convention on Human Rights Act 2003. They also pleaded delay grounds.
Ms Moore’s solicitors wrote on the morning of the hearing seeking consent to amend the case to add declarations concerning whether Irish law had provided an effective remedy and whether applying a time limit would breach rights. The defendants refused consent and opposed an adjournment. No formal amendment application or draft amended claim had been filed. The judge declined to postpone the limitation hearing, concluding that the proposed claim was different and that deciding the existing claim first would not prejudice it.
The judge said the limitation question was a matter of law and no disputed facts material to it had been identified. She noted that Ms Moore had not claimed a disability or raised an issue about when she knew of the alleged wrong. Applying the Supreme Court’s 2023 decision in McGee, she held that the constitutional damages claim was founded on a civil wrong and subject to the six-year limit. No basis had been shown to disapply that limit.
The judge also held the Convention claim was time-barred. She said the claim was subject to a one-year limit and Ms Moore had neither sought an extension in the relief claimed nor identified grounds that could justify extending time by about 13 years.
The ruling determined the proceedings as then pleaded. It did not decide the merits of the proposed additional declarations. The court concluded that the existing proceedings were time-barred under both Acts and should be dismissed.