The High Court has rejected a man’s claims that Gardaí promised him a new identity, relocation abroad and substantial funding in return for giving evidence against two men who were later convicted of IRA-related offences.
In a judgment delivered on 15 March 2016, Mr Justice Gilligan found that the man had not established an express or implied promise that he would be relocated to a specified country with a new identity, documents and several hundred thousand euro. The judge said the discussions about relocation and financial support had been general, and no specific terms had been agreed before the man gave evidence.
The plaintiff had sought €600,000 in damages, saying €350,000 was represented as funding to start a business and €250,000 to buy a house. He also claimed breach of contract, misrepresentation, negligence, breach of legitimate expectation and constitutional rights. He had withdrawn his request for an order requiring his return to the Witness Security Programme.
The defendants denied making the alleged promises. They argued that the non-statutory programme’s protections depended on the security assessment and the participant’s conduct. The court found that the plaintiff had disclosed information about his situation, spoken to media and, on some occasions, represented himself as a Garda, contrary to the entry protocol. It also found that his conduct made him unsuitable for relocation to a host country.
The judge was satisfied that the plaintiff had cooperated with the Garda investigation, entered the programme and testified, and that his evidence was important to the convictions. The court also found there had been no meaningful assessment before his admission. But it rejected his claims that the entry protocol was a ruse, that he had been pressured into signing the exit document, or that the defendants had acted unfairly. It found no concluded contract, actionable misrepresentation or misfeasance in public office, and no entitlement to the claimed legitimate expectation.
The court accepted that a threat to the plaintiff’s life might potentially remain. It recorded the Garda commitment to regularly update his threat assessment, notify him of adverse intelligence and reassess his security if necessary. The judge found no infringement of his constitutional right to bodily integrity and said there was no reasonable basis why he could not use his PPS number, seek work or start a business.
The court did not decide whether the operation of the Witness Security Programme was broadly justiciable on public-policy grounds, saying that was unnecessary in light of its findings. It did not set out the final order: it said it would hear counsel’s submissions on the form of the order.