The High Court has directed that a judge alone decide whether the arrest and detention of a 27-year-old man with severe autism were lawful, along with the linked negligence and breach-of-duty claims. Other issues in his action, including damages if that question arises, are to be determined by a jury, subject to directions from the trial judge.
The ruling by Mr Justice Hogan, delivered on 14 January 2013, concerned the mode of trial. It did not decide whether the arrest was lawful, whether the defendants were negligent, or whether the man was mistreated.
The proceedings arise from an arrest on 24 September 2010. The plaintiff’s guardian and next friend contended that he was arrested outside his grandparents’ home and taken to a Garda station without officers first contacting his parents, who lived nearby. The State defendants’ account was that a member of the public reported seeing him chase two women with a large stick or tree branch. Neither woman was struck, according to the defence. The defendants said Gardaí arrested him under section 12 of the Mental Health Act 2001 after an officer could not obtain his name or other details.
The custody records showed he was detained for just under an hour. The defence said an officer contacted his mother, who came to the station, and that the man was released at about 6.05pm after his father arrived and could confirm his severe autism. The plaintiff alleged that handcuffs and other restraints caused additional and unnecessary suffering. The defendants expressly denied that allegation.
The judge held that the false-imprisonment and intentional-trespass claims were linked to the negligence claim and arose from the same arrest. Under section 1(3)(b) of the Courts Act 1988, that meant the negligence claim could be tried with the claims that carry a jury-trial entitlement. He rejected separate trials as wasteful and directed a divided trial under Order 36, rule 7 of the Rules of the Superior Courts.
The judge will decide all issues concerning the arrest’s legality, including the related negligence and breach-of-duty claims and any declaratory relief about the arrest or detention. The jury may decide the remaining issues, including any issues about alleged treatment in custody and damages, if those matters arise. The judgment made no final findings on the underlying claims.