Breathnach v Ireland (No. 2)

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judgment Date: 01 January 1993
• Date: 01 January 1993
• Docket Number: [1982 No. 4021P]
• Court: High Court

Breathnach v. Ireland (No. 2)

Osgur Breathnach

Plaintiff

and

Ireland, The Attorney General, Joseph Egan, Thomas Fitzgerald, John Murphy, Thomas Dunne, William Maher, Gerard O'Carroll, James Butler and Michael Egan, Defendants (No. 2)

[1982 No. 4021P]

High Court

Evidence - Issue - Issue estoppel - Finding of Special Criminal Court in favour of an accused - Whether capable of giving rise to issue estoppel in subsequent civil action - Criminal charges brought by Director of Public Prosecutions - Whether determination against Director operated as estoppel against the State and the Attorney General in civil action - Members of an Garda Síochána - Not parties to criminal trial - Parties to civil action - Whether parties estopped from raising issues determined at criminal trial - Whether abuse of process of the courts.

On the 5th April, 1976, the plaintiff was arrested in connection with a garda investigation into the armed robbery of a mail train. While in the custody of the gardaí he made oral and written statements admitting involvement in the offence. On the 7th April, 1976, the plaintiff was rearrested and charged with the armed robbery.

At his trial in the Special Criminal Court the plaintiff challenged the admissibility of the statements, claiming that they had been made involuntarily. In particular, he alleged that he had been assaulted, that he had been falsely imprisoned during the time that the statements were made, and that his request for a solicitor had been denied. The court found that the plaintiff's arrest on the 5th April, 1976, was not in accordance with law, and constituted an infringement of his constitutional right to liberty; that his detention between the 5th and 7th of April was unlawful; and that the State had failed to vindicate the plaintiff's constitutional rights insofar as his request for access to a solicitor had been denied. The court, however, further found that no member of the gardai had assaulted the plaintiff and that his statements had been voluntary and the court convicted him.

On appeal, the Court of Criminal Appeal declined to disturb the finding of the court of trial that the plaintiff had not been assaulted. However, it found that the court of trial was not entitled to be satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the statements made by the plaintiff were voluntary, or that they were made in a manner that satisfied the basic requirements of fairness, and the conviction was quashed.

The plaintiff brought proceedings against the defendants claiming damages for assault and battery, false imprisonment, intimidation, malicious prosecution and failure to vindicate his constitutional rights. On the 18th July, 1989, it was held by the High Court (Lardner J.) on the trial of a preliminary issue that the issue of whether the plaintiff had been assaulted while in custody was res judicata and that the plaintiff was estopped from raising it in his action for damages against the defendants [See [1989] I.R. 491].

On 30th November, 1989, a further preliminary issue was directed to be tried as to whether the defendants were estopped from raising in their defence the issues as to the legality of the arrest and detention of the plaintiff, and whether his constitutional right of access to a solicitor had been denied.

On the hearing of the preliminary issue it was submitted by counsel on behalf of the defendants, inter alia, that a distinction should be drawn between issues decided against the plaintiff at his trial and issues decided in his favour, and that it was only in respect of the former that an estoppel arose.

Held by Blayney J., in determining the issue, 1, that where a matter was decided in favour of an accused in a criminal trial, that matter was of necessity decided against the People, and accordingly, the People, as represented by the Attorney General in civil proceedings, might in some circumstances be estopped from putting the same matter in issue again.

Kelly v. Ireland [1986] I.L.R.M. 318 considered.

2. That the determination by the Special Criminal Court that the plaintiff's arrest and subsequent detention had been unlawful constituted a clear finding against he People, as represented by the Director of Public Prosecutions, and was of such a nature as to operate as an estoppel against the People, as represented by the State and the Attorney General, in the plaintiff's action for damages.

Shaw v. Sloan [1982] N.I. 393 and Kelly v. Ireland [1986] I.L.R.M. 318 considered.

3. That while the garda defendants could not be said to have been party or privy to the criminal trial such that they were bound by any issue decided during that trial, it would be an abuse of the process of the court to permit those defendants to raise or relitigate the issue of the lawfulness of the plaintiff's arrest and detention.

Hunter v. Chief Constable of West Midlands [1982] A.C. 529 approved; Kelly v. Ireland [1986] I.L.R.M. 318 applied.

4. That in finding that the plaintiff's request for a solicitor had been denied, the court of trial had been acting upon the principle that in a criminal trial, the construction of the evidence most favourable to the accused must be preferred. The court had not, however, made a positive finding of fact in relation to the issue.

5. That the defendants were not estopped from raising an issue in their defence to the plaintiff's claim as to whether the plaintiff's request for access to a solicitor had been denied.

Cases mentioned in...