The High Court dismissed a civil claim against the Director of Europol and Spanish police officer Daniel Vicente, ruling that both defendants were immune from suit in respect of the proceedings’ subject matter.
The judgment, delivered by Mr Justice Noonan on 23 October 2015, concerned a motion by the two defendants to set aside service of the plenary summons or, alternatively, to strike out, dismiss or stay the proceedings on immunity grounds. The court dismissed the claim against those defendants; it did not determine the plaintiff’s claims against the other defendants.
Liam Delaney alleged that armed Gardaí raided a business meeting at a portacabin in Borris-in-Ossory, County Laois, on 31 May 2010. He claimed he was assaulted, arrested and falsely imprisoned at Portlaoise Garda Station, became ill and was taken to hospital, then returned to the station for prolonged questioning. He was later tried before the Special Criminal Court on two counts. The prosecution entered a nolle prosequi on 18 July 2012.
Delaney’s pleadings alleged that Europol-related defendants and others conspired to procure a miscarriage of justice and were responsible for what happened at the portacabin. Europol’s legal counsel, in an affidavit, said neither Europol nor its staff had been involved in the Garda operation, Delaney’s questioning or the decision to prosecute. He said Vicente had examined seized equipment and testified about it at trial as part of his Europol duties. Europol had considered whether to waive immunity and decided against doing so. Those affidavit statements were uncontroverted in the material before the court.
Delaney argued that the defendants had waived immunity by entering an unconditional appearance and taking steps in the case. He also alleged that Vicente’s evidence was false and part of a conspiracy, and said discovery might reveal further involvement. The defendants argued that the relevant EU rules protected them for acts performed in their official capacity; they also submitted that the Director could not be vicariously liable for Vicente and that his court testimony was protected by witness immunity.
Justice Noonan held that the jurisdiction of the court was not in issue, so the defendants’ participation did not defeat their immunity claim. He said the pleadings did not show that either defendant had acted outside an official capacity, and that alleging unlawful conduct did not, by itself, remove immunity. The judge also held that witnesses generally have immunity from suit for oral evidence given in court proceedings, and that Delaney had not alleged the narrow exception identified in the authorities. He rejected the argument that discovery could be used to search for a cause of action not yet established.
The court concluded that the first and third defendants were immune from suit in respect of the proceedings and ordered that the case be dismissed as against them.