The High Court has struck out Peter Barry’s claim for damages for false imprisonment arising from his detention in Cork Prison in 2012, ruling that judicial immunity barred the claim as pleaded. The decision does not dispose of his separate claims concerning his prison conditions and other constitutional rights.
In a judgment delivered on 26 July 2023, Ms Justice Eileen Roberts considered the defendants’ application to strike out only the false imprisonment damages claim. Barry had been detained for about 12 days and was released by High Court order on 22 August 2012 following a habeas corpus application.
The false imprisonment claim related to a contempt hearing in the Circuit Court on 8 August 2012, after which Barry was imprisoned. The defendants argued that the detention arose from a judicial act and that judicial immunity therefore provided a complete defence. They also relied on a statutory route for compensation under section 3A of the European Convention on Human Rights Act 2003, as amended. The judge did not decide that alternative argument.
Barry’s wider action seeks damages for alleged breaches of constitutional rights, including rights to liberty, dignity, privacy, bodily integrity and protection of health, as well as declarations about his prison conditions. The judge said those claims would remain whether or not the strike-out application succeeded, but found the false imprisonment claim was a substantial, separate part of the case and could be considered on its own.
The judgment records that Barry had previously sought an extension of time to bring a compensation application under section 3A, based on the same circumstances. That application was struck out by consent on 20 July 2018, with no further order. The defendants said the present proceedings amounted to an abuse of process; the judge did not reach that issue because she considered it unnecessary after deciding the immunity question.
The judge had adjourned the application to allow Barry to consider whether he could amend his pleadings to argue that his imprisonment did not arise from a judicial act. At a later hearing, his counsel confirmed he could not replead or amend the case and asked the court to proceed on the existing pleadings.
Justice Roberts concluded that the claim, as pleaded, sought damages arising from a judicial act and was barred by judicial immunity. She made an order striking out the false imprisonment damages claim as one “bound to fail”. The order did not strike out the remainder of the proceedings.