Flood v Garda Síochána Complaints Board

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: Mr. Justice Kelly
• Judgment Date: 08 October 1997
• Neutral Citation: [1997] IEHC 157
• Court: High Court
• Docket Number: [1995 No. 33 JR]
• Date: 08 October 1997

FLOOD v. GARDA SIOCHANA COMPLAINTS BOARD & WALSH

JUDICIAL REVIEW

BETWEEN

PHILIP FLOOD

APPLICANT

AND

THE GARDA SIOCHANA COMPLAINTS BOARD

RESPONDENT

AND

PATRICK WALSH

NOTICE PARTY

[1997] IEHC 157

No. 33 JR/1995

THE HIGH COURT

1 Mr. Justice Kellydelivered the 8th day of October, 1997.

THE APPLICANT'S ALLEGATIONS

2 The Applicant alleges that on the 10th December, 1992 while walking along Richmond Harbour near Portobello Bridge in the City of Dublin, he was approached by two members of the Garda, one male and the other female. The male Garda is the Notice Party to this application. The Applicant believes that both Gardai followed him from the time he left his flat at Lennox Street, a short distance from where he was stopped by them. It was about 7.30 p.m. The Notice Party asked him for his name and address and he gave both. The Notice Party then asked him where he was going. The Applicant replied that he did not have to inform the Notice Party as to where he was going. The Notice Party appeared to take offence at this and said to him "Are you alright?"and then punched him in the chest. TheApplicant alleges that the Notice Party repeatedly posed that question to him while simultaneously punching him in the chest. He also contends that the Notice Party invited him (the Applicant) to hit him.

3 The Applicant crossed the bridge in order to get away from the Notice Party but he had to pause at the kerb before doing so. He says the Notice Party caught up with him and grabbed him around the neck and then slammed his head into the parapet of the bridge. The Applicant was then forced down on to the ground and made to adopt a position on his hands and knees in full view of members of the public who were passing. He further alleges that the Notice Party kicked him on the legs and feet. At this stage the Notice Party was joined by a person in civilian clothes who also kicked the Applicant. The Applicant was then forced to lie down on the ground while the Notice Party put handcuffs on him. A patrol car arrived and the Applicant was placed in the back of it and removed to Kevin Street Garda Station.

4 On the way to the Garda Station the Applicant contends that he complained to the other Gardai in the car about the assault but the other Gardai just laughed and one said that the Notice Party had not hit the Applicant hard enough. The Applicant says he was then told that there was a fellow at Kevin Street Station named Gerry who was looking forward to meeting him. He avers that he was terrified of what might happen when he got to the Garda Station and when he arrived there he requested a solicitor and a doctor. No solicitor was contacted nor was he offered facilities to contact one but a doctor did arrive later on. He was detained in a cell and the doctor examined him in the presence of the Notice Party. He says that he showed the doctor his injuries which consisted of cuts to his legs, bruising to his knees and soreness of his feet, knees and the back of his head. The doctor did not offer any treatment and left. The Applicant was never at any stage questioned about any alleged crimeor offered any explanation for the Notice Party's behaviour in assaulting him or arresting him or in demanding information fromhim.

5 Later that night the Applicant was released from custody without charge. He attended at the Casualty Department of the Meath Hospital for treatment to his injuries.

THE COMPLAINT

6 On the following day the Applicant made a complaint to the Respondent concerning what had occurred. It was made orally to an official of the Respondent but was reduced to writing on a standard form and was signed by the Applicant.

7 On the 12th March, 1993 the Respondent's Chief Executive wrote to the Applicant's solicitor in the following terms:-

"Dear Sir"

8 I refer to previous correspondence concerning the complaint which you made under the Garda Siochana (Complaints) Act, 1986.

9 From the information available to me at this stage, I am of opinion that the complaint is admissible under the Act, and I have notified the Garda Commissioner accordingly. I have instructed him to appoint an Investigating Officer under Section 6 of the Act, and he will provide me with details of this appointment.

10 As soon as the Commissioner informs me of the name of the Investigating Officer, I will write to you again and advise you of the next stage in the process.

11 Yours sincerely

12 Sean D. Hurley

13 Chief Executive".

14 On the 26th April, 1993 the Applicant's solicitor was again written to by the Respondent. On this occasion he was informed that the Garda Commissioner was of the view that the complaint made against the Notice Party was not suitable for informal resolution. The Commissioner had, therefore, appointed an investigating officer, namely, Inspector M. McLaughlin of Pearse Street Garda Station. The Applicant's solicitor was told that at the conclusion of his investigation, the investigating officer would submit his detailed report for examination and consideration by the Respondent. The Applicant's solicitor was told that he would be kept informed of developments.

THE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS

15 On the 9th February, 1993 the Notice Party applied to the District Court for the issue of a summons against the Applicant. A summons was issued on foot of that request. It notified the Applicant that he would be accused of using threatening or abusive or insulting words or behaviour with intent to provoke a breach of the peace at Portobello Bridge on the 10th December, 1992 contrary to Section 14(13) of the Dublin Police Act, 1842. The summons was returnable before a District Judge on the 9th June, 1993. The Applicant appeared in the District Court on foot of that summons on that date and pleaded not guilty to the charge. The case was adjourned to the 2nd December, 1993.

16 On the adjourned date the Applicant again appeared before the District Court. The Notice Party applied for another adjournment of the case. The Applicant's solicitor objected to that course being followed and the summons was struck out.

17 That brought the criminal proceedings to an end.

THE INVESTIGATION OF THE COMPLAINT

18 While the criminal proceedings against the Applicant were pending in the District Court, his solicitor received a letter from the Respondent. It was dated the 11th June, 1993. It informed the Applicant's solicitor that Inspector McLaughlin had been unable to contact the Applicant despite a number of attempts. It went on to say that when contact was eventually made with the Applicant he refused to make a statement or an appointment to make a statement with Inspector McLaughlin. The letter pointed out that the investigation of the Applicant's allegations, which were of a serious nature, could not proceed without his version of events. It went on to point out that if the Applicant wished the complaint to be pursued, he should make contact with the investigating officer within three weeks of that date.

19 The Applicant's solicitor responded to this letter on the 15th June, 1993. His letter pointed out that the investigating officer had made contact with the Applicant at 11 p.m. on a Sunday night by calling uninvited and unannounced to his residence. The solicitor pointed out that he did not regard that as the normal way to attempt to reassure complainants that their complaints were being investigated in a serious way. His letter went on to point out that the substantive matter of the complaint was at that stage sub judice and that no further statement could be made by the Applicant until the determination of the criminalproceedings.

20 Following the striking out of the criminal proceedings brought against the Applicant, both he and his solicitor attended by arrangement with Inspector McLaughlin at Pearse Street Garda Station. That meeting took place on the 18th January, 1994. At it the Applicant made a statement which broadly corresponds with the allegations set out in the first part of this judgment.

21 The next development in the case occurred when the Applicant's solicitor received a letter from the Respondent dated the 1st June, 1994. It read as follows:-

"Dear Sir

I refer to previous correspondence concerning the complaint which you made under the Garda Siochana (Complaints) Act, 1986.

The report of the Investigating Officer appointed to investigate the complaint and the relevant comments and recommendations of the Chief Executive have been considered carefully by the Board. Being satisfied that the complaint was admissible, and that the conduct complained of might constitute a criminal offence on the part of any member, the Board referred the matter to the Director of Public Prosecutions. The Director has now informed us that there will be no prosecution.

The Board is satisfied that the matter has been thoroughly investigated and is of opinion that neither an offence nor a breach of discipline on the part of any member has been disclosed. Accordingly, the Board will take no further action in the matter.

Yours sincerely

Sean D. Hurley

Chief Executive".

22 This letter was responded to by the Applicant's Solicitor on the 4th July, 1994. He wrote as follows:-

"Dear Sir"

23 I refer to your letter of the 1st June, 1994.

24 I have considered the contents carefully and there is one aspect of the letter that puzzles me. In paragraph 2 of your letter, it is stated that the Board's opinion is that a crime may have been committed by a Garda and yet, at paragraph 3, the opinion of the Board is stated to be that no crime or disciplinary breach has occurred. I find it difficult to envisage the process which might lead to both opinions being held by the Board.

25 Furthermore, my client was not informed that the Board was to meet to consider his complaint and consequently has had no opportunity to address the issues before the Board or to...