The High Court dismissed a man’s negligence claim against the Garda Commissioner and other State defendants over injuries he suffered during a public order operation on Dorset Street, Dublin, in May 2011.
The court found it was more probable than not that a member of the Garda Public Order Unit accidentally knocked the plaintiff down as officers advanced along a footpath. But Ms Justice Irvine ruled that the collision did not result from negligence or a breach of duty.
The plaintiff had been walking towards his daughter’s school when he encountered a line of riot police blocking Dorset Street. He stopped to telephone her. Video evidence showed a metal security barrier thrown at gardaí near Hardwicke Lane, followed seconds later by the squad’s advance. The judge found the plaintiff fell eight seconds after the barrier hit the ground.
The defendants denied that a garda had knocked him down. They argued that, even if contact occurred, the officers were responding to a volatile riot and had not acted negligently. They also alleged that the plaintiff had failed to take reasonable care for his own safety.
The judge rejected the argument that gardaí had a general immunity from negligence claims when performing public order duties, or that plaintiffs should have to meet a higher threshold such as proving recklessness. She said ordinary negligence principles applied, with the circumstances and public interest in maintaining order relevant to whether reasonable care had been taken.
In assessing those circumstances, the judge found that pedestrians on the footpath had scattered after the barrier was thrown and as the riot squad moved forward. The plaintiff, who was on his phone, appeared not to react to the unfolding danger. The officers were carrying out a public order operation amid ongoing violence and missile attacks, and the judge considered that they could reasonably expect people on the footpath to notice their advance and move clear.
The judge concluded that the collision was modest and accidental, rather than deliberate or reckless, and that holding the defendants liable in those circumstances would set an unreasonably high standard of care. She did not decide the defendants’ contributory negligence argument or assign the plaintiff any share of blame, because she found no negligence by the defendants. The claim was dismissed. The parties had agreed that the extent of the injuries would be considered only if liability were established.