The Court of Appeal has upheld the High Court’s refusal to strike out Darren Fitzpatrick’s claim against the State and Garda authorities over his arrest and detention in January 2011. The appeal concerned delay in advancing the proceedings, not whether the alleged assault or other wrongdoing occurred.
Fitzpatrick claims damages for assault, battery, false imprisonment and breach of constitutional rights. His proceedings were issued in August 2012. After pleadings and replies to particulars in 2013, they did not advance until he served a notice of intention to proceed in June 2018. The defendants then applied to dismiss the case for want of prosecution or, alternatively, under the court’s inherent jurisdiction because of inordinate and inexcusable delay.
Fitzpatrick accepted that the delay was inordinate. He attributed it to the breakdown of a relationship with an independent witness, his financial circumstances and delay by his legal team. The Court of Appeal agreed with the High Court that the delay was also inexcusable: the explanations were inadequately supported, and the witness could have been subpoenaed. The court described the delay as resulting from Fitzpatrick’s unilateral decision not to progress the case.
The appeal turned on the balance of justice. The defendants argued that the passage of time would generally prejudice their defence because the case would depend largely on oral testimony. They did not claim specific prejudice or that their witnesses were unavailable. After the High Court hearing, they provided discovery of seven Garda statements, a custody record and a command and control printout. The statements, made in early 2013, addressed the arrest and detention and the disputed allegations.
The Court of Appeal said the records could help Garda witnesses refresh their memories. It also noted that the defendants admitted the arrest and detention in their defence, although they denied wrongdoing. Given the available records and the uncomplicated factual background, it concluded that the general prejudice from delay was greatly mitigated. Dismissing the claim would be the greater injustice, the court held, and the High Court had exercised its discretion correctly.
The appeal was dismissed. The Court of Appeal’s provisional view was that Fitzpatrick should receive his costs in both courts, with execution stayed pending the proceedings. The defendants had 14 days to seek a brief supplemental hearing on costs. The judgment did not decide the underlying liability or damages claim.