The High Court dismissed Patrick Roche’s personal injuries proceedings over an alleged fight at Cork Prison after finding that he had allowed the case to stall for more than five years.
Mr Justice Max Barrett delivered judgment on 1 October 2018. The claim concerned an alleged attack by fellow prisoners on or about 23 February 2005, while Roche was detained at Cork Prison. He alleged that he suffered personal injuries and sought damages from the Minister for Justice, the Irish Prison Service, the State, the Attorney General and, by order, Nicholas O’Driscoll. The defendants denied the claim.
The proceedings began in 2007 and were transferred to the High Court in 2012. The last step before the defendants’ strike-out application was a notice of trial issued and served in February 2013. The court applied the three-part test from Primor: whether the delay was inordinate, whether it was inexcusable and whether the balance of justice favoured dismissal.
The judge found the delay was plainly inordinate. Roche’s explanations were that he had become depressed after returning to prison in 2013, was still awaiting ankle fusion surgery and had not known his solicitor was trying to contact him. The court did not accept these as excuses. It said the prospect of surgery and continuing pain did not justify delaying a claim, and it was unpersuaded by his asserted lack of awareness of the solicitor’s contact attempts. The delay was therefore inexcusable.
On prejudice, the judge found the defendants’ evidence weak. Their affidavit relied on the passage of time and the difficulty of defending an old claim, but there was no evidence that witnesses had died or were unavailable, or that records could not be found. No evidence from prison staff or the governor had been provided, and there had been no discovery. The court therefore could not safely find, on the evidence, that the delay was likely to cause or had caused concrete prejudice.
Despite that evidential gap, Mr Justice Barrett concluded that constitutional and European Convention obligations to ensure proceedings are concluded within a reasonable time applied in the defendants’ favour. He cited the age of the alleged injury, the absence of any unusual feature in its nature and the lack of action by Roche since February 2013. He said refusing the application would lead to further delay before trial.
The court acceded to the defendants’ application and dismissed the proceedings for delay. The judgment does not decide whether the alleged assault occurred or whether the defendants were liable.