The High Court has struck out Gerard Martin Fulham’s damages claim over his imprisonment in Mountjoy Prison in December 2007, finding that the claim disclosed no cause of action and was bound to fail. The court also ruled that he had no right to a jury trial for a claim alleging breach of constitutional rights alone.
Mr Fulham had been imprisoned from 21 to 28 December 2007 under committal orders for unpaid judgment debts. Chadwicks Limited had obtained judgment for €14,245.63 in April 2005 for goods and services. Independent Newspapers (Ireland) Limited had obtained a District Court decree for €4,158.97 in October 2004 for advertising services. The High Court said Mr Fulham did not contest or appeal those orders, the later instalment orders, or the committal orders. He also did not seek judicial review or an Article 40 inquiry into the lawfulness of his detention.
The proceedings sought damages for alleged breaches of constitutional rights, including the right to liberty. Mr Fulham argued that his detention was unlawful and that his claim did not depend on a later case. He relied, however, on the 2009 High Court decision in McCann, which held section 6 of the Court Orders Act 1940 invalid. The defendants argued that the Supreme Court’s decision in A v The Governor of Arbour Hill Prison prevented a person from using a later declaration of unconstitutionality to reopen concluded proceedings or claim damages where the person had not challenged the original orders.
Justice Bernard J. Barton held that the 1940 Act carried a presumption of constitutionality when the committal orders were made. Applying the principle in the A case, he found Mr Fulham could not rely on the later McCann ruling to establish a damages claim after the earlier proceedings had reached finality. The court also accepted the defendants’ submission that a constitutional rights claim required a breach that was deliberate, conscious and unjustified, and found that those criteria had not been established and could not be met on the claim presented.
On trial mode, the judge found no statutory or equitable entitlement to a jury for a claim alleging breach of constitutional rights alone. He did not decide whether the pleadings also included a separate false imprisonment claim or whether joinder of such a claim could preserve a jury trial entitlement.
The court granted the defendants’ applications under its inherent jurisdiction and struck out the proceedings as frivolous and vexatious, disclosing no cause of action and being bound to fail.