The High Court refused to continue an order preventing publication of the identity of a severely autistic man suing the Garda Commissioner and other State defendants over his arrest and detention in 2010. Mr Justice Hogan ruled on 11 June 2013 that anonymity would be prejudicial to the interests of justice under section 27 of the Civil Law (Miscellaneous Proceedings) Act 2008.
The plaintiff, identified in the judgment as D.F., was 27 and had a severe intellectual disability and very limited ability to communicate. His testamentary guardian and next friend, K.M., sought reporting restrictions, saying publicity could expose him to unwanted attention. The judge accepted that he was vulnerable and held that section 27 could apply even though the plaintiff would have little awareness of the litigation or its publicity.
The proceedings concern an incident on 24 September 2010. The guardian’s account was that the plaintiff was unlawfully arrested outside his grandparents’ home and taken to a Garda station, causing him acute distress. The State defendants’ account was that a member of the public reported seeing him chase two women with a stick or tree branch, though neither was struck. They said Gardaí arrested him under section 12 of the Mental Health Act 2001 after a Garda could not obtain his name or other details.
The custody record showed detention for just under an hour. The defendants said the plaintiff’s mother came to the station shortly after 5.30pm, and his father arrived about 20 minutes later. After his father confirmed the plaintiff’s autism, he was released at about 6.05pm. The judgment records that the legality of the arrest and any negligence were to be decided by the trial judge, while the plaintiff had previously been granted a jury trial on other issues.
The State opposed anonymity, arguing that it would be unfair for the plaintiff to make allegations while Garda members whose professionalism and good name were implicated remained identifiable. The judge considered the statutory test alongside constitutional principles of open justice, equality and protection of good name. He concluded that the interests of justice outweighed the case for concealing the plaintiff’s identity.
An ex parte reporting restriction had previously been made. The court declined to continue it and also declined to grant equivalent relief under any inherent jurisdiction. The ruling concerned anonymity and reporting restrictions; it did not determine the underlying claims about the arrest.