The Court of Appeal has dismissed David Mooney’s appeal against the High Court decision rejecting his claim for damages over his treatment in the Garda Witness Security Programme (WSP). The appeal court upheld the trial judge’s conclusions but did not decide whether the Gardaí owed Mr Mooney a duty of care.
Mr Mooney had joined the programme after giving a statement and agreeing to testify against two men. His evidence was described in the High Court judgment as a vital factor in their convictions. He was admitted to the WSP in 2002 and left in 2005.
He argued that Gardaí had treated him unfairly and had made commitments about relocating him abroad, providing a new identity and helping him establish a new life. On appeal, his case focused in part on the lack of a proper assessment before he was admitted to the programme and the absence of psychological or psychiatric counselling before the trial.
The High Court found there had been no meaningful assessment before his admission, and accepted that he had not received psychological or psychiatric counselling. But it rejected his claim that Gardaí had promised he would be relocated to a particular country with substantial funding. The trial judge also found that Mr Mooney had disclosed information about his situation, spoken to media, represented himself to members of the public as a Garda and failed to follow parts of the entry protocol. The judge concluded that he was unsuitable for relocation and had not been treated unfairly.
The appeal court said those factual findings were not seriously challenged and that the High Court judge had given adequate reasons for them. It also rejected the argument that the Gardaí were liable for misfeasance of public office, finding that their actions reflected exasperation rather than malice.
On negligence, the Court of Appeal left unresolved the broader question of whether the Gardaí owed Mr Mooney a duty of care. It assumed, without deciding, that the operation of the WSP could be reviewed by a court. The judges said the absence of screening did not establish a breach of duty in this case, even if such a duty existed: screening was directed at protecting the programme, and Mr Mooney remained free to leave it.
The court therefore upheld the High Court’s conclusions and dismissed the appeal.