Cronin v The Minister for Finance and Public Expenditure
| Jurisdiction | Ireland |
| Judge | Mr. Justice Bernard J. Barton |
| Judgment Date | 24 May 2019 |
| Neutral Citation | [2019] IEHC 396 |
| Court | High Court |
| Docket Number | [2008 No. 933 S.P.] |
| Date | 24 May 2019 |
[2019] IEHC 396
THE HIGH COURT
IN THE MATTER OF THE GARDA (COMPENSATION) ACTS, 1941 AND 1945
Barton J.
[2008 No. 933 S.P.]
Compensation – Injury – Pecuniary loss – Applicant seeking compensation – What would be a fair and reasonable sum to compensate the applicant?
Facts: The applicant, Mr Cronin, applied to the High Court seeking compensation pursuant to the provisions of the Garda (Compensation) Acts, 1941 to 1945. The matter arose from an incident which occurred in the course of the applicant’s duties as a member of An Garda Síochana while he was attending at Limerick Circuit Court on the 9th July, 2004. The applicant was injured in the course of a violent struggle which ensued when he attempted to restrain a prisoner who tried to escape the execution of a bench warrant.
Held by Barton J that, having regard to the findings made in this case to the period of time which had elapsed since the assault was committed and to the fact that the applicant had yet to undergo surgery under general anaesthetic for a knee replacement and the post-operative recovery attendant upon that event, a fair and reasonable sum to compensate the applicant commensurate with the injuries for pain and suffering to date was €95,000 and for pain and suffering into the future was €25,000 making an aggregate total of €120,000 general compensation.
Barton J held that the Court would award €286,630 in total, adding the sum of €166,630 agreed between the parties in respect of pecuniary loss to the sum of €120,000 assessed in respect of general compensation.
Application granted.
This matter comes before the Court by way of an application for compensation pursuant to the provisions of the Garda (Compensation) Acts, 1941 to 1945 and arises from an incident which occurred in the course of the Applicant's duties as a member of An Garda Síochana while he was attending at Limerick Circuit Court on the 9th July, 2004. The Applicant was injured in the course of a violent struggle which ensued when he attempted to restrain a prisoner who tried to escape the execution of a bench warrant. The prisoner struck the Applicant a number blows before a fellow officer came to his assistance. Together they ultimately managed to subdue the prisoner but not before he tripped the Applicant, causing him to fall awkwardly on his left knee with the prisoner and fellow officer falling on top of him.
The Applicant was born on the 10th June, 1966, and resides in Crecora, County Limerick. On completion of his secondary education he decided to enter the nursing profession and qualified as a psychiatric nurse. He was socially gregarious and had a keen interest and participated in outdoor sports, particularly GAA football, a code in which he also coached. Not long after qualification he decided to change vocational direction and become a police officer. He attended the Templemore Training College and passed out in August 1991. There is no doubt that to whatever he turned his hand the Applicant was personally motivated and ambitious; whatever profession or calling he entered his intention was to progress as far as was possible, and so it turned out. He sat his sergeant's exams, which he passed with distinction, in 1995. However, the Court is well aware, as the facts in this case show, that passing that exam and securing an appointment are creatures of a different colour. The question of appointment arises only where a vacancy occurs; in that event there may be several qualified candidates for the post and in his case the Applicant had to wait until 1999 before he was promoted to sergeant. Prior to that he had been involved in the training programme at Templemore College. His ambitions to secure promotion did not end with his appointment as a sergeant; he returned to studies to take exams which would qualify him for promotion to the rank of inspector which he took successfully in 2001.
In the year following he was transferred to Limerick. As with other officers he worked to a roster and in October 2003 he was promoted to the rank of sergeant in charge at Henry Street. This was a significant posting. The populace of the city was exposed to the results of the violent excesses then being perpetrated in the course of a feud between two gangland families and their associates. As the sergeant in charge at Henry Street the Applicant found himself in a very challenging position; he was quite literally in the front line of the fight back by the police service of the State against criminality in the city. Discharging his responsibilities in this position meant that the he had to undertake a lot of overtime for which, incidentally, he willingly volunteered. Well over a third of his annual income was made up of overtime and this remained the case up until the time of the assault.
Although the Applicant had passed his inspector's exams with a distinction, he had not secured promotion by July 2004. In addition to passing exams the process of promotion involves taking part in what was referred to as an interview competition for a place conducted by an interview board. Success at interview is no guarantee of an appointment; that depends on a vacancy occurring for which there may be a number of successful candidates; a circumstance which is of significance to the central issue in controversy which remains between the parties. They reached agreement in relation to pecuniary loss save in respect of this head for which a very significant claim has been advanced.
It is quite clear from the actuarial evidence which was adduced and from the documented records which were proved that promotion to the rank of inspector would not only have impacted on the Applicant's past income but also on his future earnings including the lump sum payment and pension benefits which he would expect to receive on retirement. There had been considerable controversy concerning the basis upon which the Applicant's claim for future loss of earnings as a sergeant should be calculated. In the event, having ventilated their respective positions in the course of the hearing the parties were able to reach agreement in relation to the following heads of pecuniary loss:
(i.) €129,224 in respect of past and future loss of earnings as a sergeant;
(ii.) €26,894 in respect of the claim for medical costs associated with knee replacements; and,
(iii.) €10,512 for other expenses;
Total €166,630.
What remains to be determined by the Court in respect of the Claim for pecuniary loss is whether or not the Applicant would have been appointed to the rank of inspector and if so the approximate date upon which an appointment would probably have occurred. Subject to the conclusion reached by the Court on this issue, actuarial computations were made available to facilitate the computation of the relevant loss. One other matter remains in issue, the assessment of general compensation for the Applicant's injuries. I pause here to observe that the injuries, about which there is no significant divergence of medical opinion, were serious and have resulted not only in physical disability but also in ongoing pain and discomfort.
However, the significant sequelae he experienced did not deflect the Applicant from perusing his options to advance himself in the force. Subsequent to the assault he attended two interview board competitions for promotion to inspector, one in 2010 and the other in 2014, in neither of which he was successful. This was not, however, the end of his ambitions in the intervening years. He read law securing a diploma in law in 2002 and an LLB qualification in 2007. No doubt encouraged by the success he followed that by reading law at the Kings Inns and was called to the Bar of Ireland in 2010. The legal knowledge acquired in the process and his legal qualifications have stood him in good stead.
In 2011 the Applicant was promoted to the position of court presenter, a role ordinarily performed by an inspector. He finds the role satisfying and it has the added benefit of accommodating his ongoing disabilities, however, a part of his case is that these very same disabilities prevent him from undertaking external policing duties which he has identified and contends was the sole reason for his failure to successfully complete the competition interviews for promotion in 2010 and 2014, about which more later.
The Applicant was admitted to Limerick Regional Hospital following the assault. He had complained of being in severe pain and of having heard a “crack” in his left knee when he fell to the floor. X-rays of his left knee confirmed he had suffered a depressed fracture of the lateral tibial plateau. Professor Eric Masterson, Consultant, Orthopaedic Surgeon, reduced the fracture under general anaesthetic and elevated the depressed articular surface; bone was harvested from the left iliac crest and used to support the collapsed lateral articular surface. The fracture of the lateral tibial condyle was fixed with an L-shaped plate and screws; the leg was then placed in a plaster cast. After a few days observation the Applicant discharged from hospital on the 14th July, 2004.
He was followed up in the outpatient department of the hospital. The plaster cast was removed on the 13th August, 2004 and replaced with a brace which the Applicant wore until in or about October/November the same year. He was unable to return to work until February 2005 at which stage he was medically certified fit to undertake light duties. Although he was then nominally a sergeant in charge the Applicant was only able to undertake light duties. In the event it transpired that he would never again be medically certified fit to undertake full policing duties.
Initially the...
To continue reading
Request your trial