The High Court has ruled that the State defendants did not owe a duty of care to a woman over the investigation and prosecution of her rape complaint, made when she was 12. The ruling decided a preliminary issue in her damages claim; it did not determine the full claim or whether it was statute-barred.
The plaintiff made a formal complaint on 4 May 1990. The judgment says her complaint was validated by a unit at Crumlin Hospital, and that no further steps appear to have been taken by the defendants to advance the investigation until 1996. The alleged perpetrator was returned to Ireland for trial in October 1998 and convicted of rape and other offences. The Court of Criminal Appeal quashed the conviction in 2001 and directed a retrial. A later judicial review application to prohibit the retrial, based on prosecutorial delay, succeeded before Murphy J.
The plaintiff argued that the handling of the complaint and prosecution was negligent and breached duties owed to her, including constitutional rights. She said her mental health deteriorated after the trial collapsed and that she was diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder. The defendants disputed that they owed her an actionable duty, arguing that liability for investigative and prosecutorial functions could inhibit their work and undermine the public interest. They also argued that the case was out of time.
Justice Hedigan accepted that the plaintiff’s contact with gardaí as a child established proximity and that harm from leaving her without resolution for six years was foreseeable. He said the central question was whether public policy made it just and reasonable to impose a duty of care. Applying Irish authorities, including W (HM) v Ireland and a judgment in B L v Ireland delivered after the hearing, he concluded that the defendants owed no duty of care in carrying out investigatory or prosecutorial functions. The court considered that such a duty could lead police and prosecutors to act defensively and divert resources from crime investigation and suppression.
The judgment limited that conclusion to those functions. It said it did not mean the bodies were immune from damages claims based on ordinary negligence principles. Having found no duty of care in this case, the court said the limitation-period question was moot. The preliminary ruling therefore did not determine whether the plaintiff’s allegations were proved or resolve the remaining aspects of her claim.