The High Court has sent part of a decision on Garda James McGuill’s compensation application back to the Minister for Justice, after finding that he was not given a fair opportunity to address whether the operation in which he was injured involved “special risk”.
Mr Justice Hogan upheld the minister’s conclusion that McGuill’s injuries were of a minor character under the Garda Síochána (Compensation) Act 1941. But he quashed the decision insofar as it found against McGuill on special risk, and remitted that issue to the minister so McGuill could make submissions.
McGuill was injured in the early hours of 5 December 2008, when a jeep rammed the patrol car in which he was an observer. As he was getting out, the car was struck from the front. He was knocked over by the door, held on to its handle and was dragged under the car for a short distance.
Medical reports recorded sprains to his left shoulder and knee, and superficial grazes to his knee and elbow. He was off work for 12 days. He also had sleep difficulties and received counselling for post-traumatic stress symptoms. A medical report described those psychological effects as mild and not functionally impairing after his return to work.
The minister refused his compensation application under section 6(1)(b) of the 1941 Act, finding that the injuries were minor and were not sustained while performing a duty involving special risk. The judgment says a minister’s opinion must be bona fide, factually sustainable and not unreasonable. Applying that test, Hogan found the minor-injury conclusion was supported by the evidence: the physical injuries had largely cleared within weeks, while the psychological symptoms were generally mild.
The separate special-risk issue turned on how the refusal was handled. In a February 2011 email, the department said its information about a possible refusal “refers solely to the injuries sustained”. McGuill’s legal submission then focused on the nature of his injuries and did not address special risk. When the minister refused the application in January 2012, he also concluded that the operation did not involve special risk, without giving reasons.
Hogan found that this sequence amounted to an inadvertent breach of fair procedures. He said McGuill might be able to show that the patrol car had been instructed to watch or pursue a known criminal, but left that question for McGuill to address and the minister to decide. If the minister finds the operation involved special risk, the judgment says a certificate allowing proceedings may be granted despite the injuries being minor. The court did not itself decide that the operation involved special risk or grant the certificate.