The High Court has dismissed a woman’s action alleging that a garda assaulted her and caused a serious leg injury at Harcourt Street Garda Station in Dublin in July 2008.
In a judgment delivered on 17 December 2010, Mr Justice McMahon said the plaintiff had not proved, on the balance of probabilities, that Garda Emmett Hayde kicked her in the way she claimed. The court dismissed the action. The judgment does not set out a damages award or any further order.
The incident followed the plaintiff’s arrest on suspicion of theft after she was stopped at Dunnes Stores on South King Street. At the station, she resisted attempts by two female gardaí to search her handbag. Several officers described a struggle as they tried to restrain her and move her towards a cell. The plaintiff admitted in evidence that she was screaming, resisting strongly and acting irrationally.
The plaintiff said Garda Hayde ran towards her as she was being taken from an interview room and kicked her left shin after she kicked him to protect herself. Hayde said she kicked towards him twice; he raised his leg in response, and her foot struck his boot on the second attempt. Other officers gave evidence that they saw her kicking out, but the accounts differed on what they could see and where they were positioned. The judge accepted that there were minor differences in the officers’ accounts, but found they did not indicate a conspiracy and accepted that their evidence was honest.
The plaintiff suffered a wound to her left shin. She was taken by ambulance to St James’s Hospital, where she had a skin graft, and took five months to recover. The judgment also records her evidence and medical history, including diabetes, Cushing’s disease and fragile skin that could bruise easily and heal slowly. A previous wound to the same leg had taken about a year to heal.
The judge said the injury’s severity did not establish that great force had been used, given the plaintiff’s medical conditions and the earlier injury. He found Hayde’s account plausible and was not satisfied that the plaintiff had established her allegation. The ruling determined the civil action on the evidence before the court; it did not find that no injury occurred.