The Court of Appeal has dismissed an appeal against the High Court’s decision to strike out a man’s claim alleging assault, battery and false imprisonment at Dundalk Garda Station. The appeal concerned delay in prosecuting the case; the Court of Appeal did not determine whether the alleged assault happened.
Leonard Gorman’s proceedings sought damages over an alleged incident on 15 January 2001. He claimed that three Garda members attacked him in a cell, leaving him shocked and bruised. The State defendants denied assault, negligence and impropriety. They said he had been lawfully detained and that any injuries resulted from intoxication, failure to cooperate and assaults on Garda members.
The High Court dismissed the claim in July 2012 for want of prosecution, finding the delay both inordinate and inexcusable and that the balance of justice favoured dismissal. Gorman appealed. The Court of Appeal reviewed the evidence and submissions and concluded that the defendants had discharged their burden of establishing inordinate and inexcusable delay. Gorman conceded on appeal that the delay was inordinate.
The court rejected his argument that difficulties obtaining a readable copy of CCTV footage excused the delay. It said the footage related to events before his arrest, while the alleged wrongdoing was said to have occurred in the Garda station. The defendants had supplied two copies, in 2005 and 2010. The court found that the footage had not been pursued with sufficient diligence and that a court application could have been made to secure its production.
In assessing the balance of justice, the court recognised the gravity and public interest of the allegation, but said serious complaints should be examined promptly and that a very old claim risked an unjust outcome. It found the defendants would likely face general prejudice from having to answer the claim more than 12 years after the events, even though they did not identify specific missing evidence. Witness statements taken at the time would not necessarily address matters raised at trial, and memories could fade.
The court also considered the pleaded injuries, which it described as bruising from which Gorman had made a complete recovery. It found the defendants had delayed in delivering a sworn discovery affidavit, but that this had not caused significant prejudice. It placed primary responsibility for advancing the case during the years spent pursuing the footage on the plaintiff.
The Court of Appeal agreed that the balance of justice favoured dismissal, considering both the defendants’ interest in protecting their good name and the plaintiff’s right of access to the courts. It dismissed the appeal, leaving the High Court’s dismissal in place. The judgment did not rule on the truth of the assault allegations or award damages.