The High Court dismissed a former prison officer’s proceedings against the Minister for Justice, Ireland and the Attorney General, finding that his delay in pursuing the case was inordinate and inexcusable and that the balance of justice strongly favoured dismissal.
The proceedings began in 1991. The plaintiff claimed his dismissal from the Prison Service in May 1989 was invalid and sought damages for alleged psychological injuries arising from a shooting incident at Portlaoise Prison in September 1988. He also alleged breach of confidentiality and challenged the constitutionality of section 5 of the Civil Service Regulations Act 1956.
The defendants denied the allegations, including that the plaintiff had recaptured an escaped prisoner or suffered injury because of the incident. They said he was dismissed following repeated warnings about absenteeism. In 1993, they served a notice seeking further details; the plaintiff did not reply. His solicitors served a notice of intention to proceed in September 2019, after a long period of inactivity.
The plaintiff attributed the delay in part to serious mental health difficulties, including PTSD, and problems with his former legal representation. A psychiatrist’s report described his condition as severe, disabling and chronic. The judge said the report did not explain why the plaintiff had been unable to instruct a solicitor or ensure the case progressed. The judge also considered an affidavit from a former Prison Officers’ Association official, who described helping the plaintiff from 2011 but could not account for the earlier inactivity.
The plaintiff argued that the Personal Injuries Assessment Board Act 2003 prevented the court from dealing with the defendants’ application concerning the personal injuries claim. The judge rejected that argument: the proceedings predated the Act, so its relevant provisions did not apply and did not prevent the court from exercising its jurisdiction to dismiss for delay.
The judge found the delay clearly inordinate under any of the time periods advanced by the parties. The court also considered prejudice to the defence, including the passage of more than 32 years since the alleged incident and the unavailability of witnesses relevant to both the incident and the dismissal. The judge said a defence medical expert would face difficulty assessing the plaintiff’s reported symptoms and their causes so long after the events.
The constitutional claim was not considered because it was absent from the statement of claim, and no amendment application was before the court. The judge dismissed the plaintiff’s claim. The court invited brief written submissions on costs and any other relevant matter within 14 days of the judgment’s electronic communication, with further orders to follow.