Mooney v Corporation of Dublin

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judgment Date: 27 July 1939
• Date: 27 July 1939
• Court: High Court

High Court.

Mooney v. Dublin Corporation.

WILLIAM MOONEY

Applicant

and

CORPORATION OF DUBLIN, Respondents (1)

Criminal injury - Compensation - Claim by Civic Guard - Face slashed with razor blade by person whom he had arrested - Person arrested for soliciting for purposes of prostitution - Injury causing temporary disability and permanent disfigurement but no other permanent injury - Whether claimant"maimed" or not - Meaning of "maim" - Whether soliciting constituted a breach of the peace - Grand Jury (Ir.) Act, 1836 (6 & 7 Wm. 4, c. 116),s. 106 - Dublin Police Act, 1842 (5 & 6 Vict. c. 24), s. 14, sub-ss. 11 & 13.

Appeal from the Circuit Court.

William Mooney, a member of the Civic Guard, applied to the Circuit Court under s. 106 of the Grand Jury (Ir.)

Act, 1836 (6 & 7 Wm. 4, c. 116), for compensation in respect of a criminal injury sustained by him on the 11th April, 1932, while on duty as a police officer in Bride Street, in the City of Dublin.

The Circuit Court Judge awarded him the sum of £100 compensation, and from this decision the respondents, the Dublin Corporation, appealed to the High Court.

The facts have been summarised in the headnote, and are set out in the judgment of O'Byrne J.

The applicant, a member of the Civic Guard, arrested a woman on a charge of soliciting men for the purpose of prostitution in a public thoroughfare in the City of Dublin, contrary to s. 14, sub-s. 11, of the Dublin Police Act, 1842. When in the witness-box after having given evidence on this charge against the woman, the applicant was slashed by the woman twice across the face with a safety razor blade. He was temporarily disabled and was absent from duty for some time, but, with the exception of the scars on his face, which constituted a disfigurement, he was not permanently injured. He claimed compensation under s. 106 of the Grand Jury (Ir.) Act, 1836, on the ground that he was a police officer and that he was maimed on account of his exertions, as such peace officer, to bring a disturber of the public peace to justice. The Circuit Court Judge awarded him compensation. On appeal to the High Court:

Held: 1. That the term "maim" in s. 106 of the Grand Jury (Ir.) Act, 1836, implied a disability of a permanent character, and was not applicable to a merely permanent disfigurement such as that suffered by the applicant.

R. v. Boyce,ENR 1 Mood. 29, and English v. Kerry Co. Co., 34 I.L.T. R. 76, applied.

2. That the soliciting in question was neither a breach of the public peace nor likely to lead to a breach of the public peace, and therefore the woman was not a disturber of the public peace, and the applicant was not maimed on account of his exertions to bring a disturber of the public peace to justice.

Accordingly the application for compensation failed and the decision of the Circuit Court Judge must be reversed.

Cur. adv. vult.

Sullivan P. :—

I have read the judgment about to be delivered by Mr. Justice O'Byrne, and I concur in the conclusions at which he has arrived and in the reasons for those conclusions.

O'Byrne J. :—

This is an appeal against an award of the Circuit Court Judge of the Dublin Circuit Court whereby he awarded the respondent a sum of £100 under s. 106 of the Grand Jury (Ir.) Act, 1836 (6 & 7 Wm. 4, c. 116).

This claim was brought upon the ground that the respondent was a peace officer and that he was maimed on account of his exertions, as such peace officer, to bring a disturber of the public peace to justice.

On behalf of the appellants it was contended: 1, that the respondent was not maimed, and 2, that, if he were maimed, it was not on account of his exertions as a peace officer to bring a disturber of the public peace to justice.

The respondent is a member of the Gardá Sîothchána, and on the night of the 11th April, 1932, he was on duty in uniform in the vicinity of Bride Street in the City of Dublin. At about 10.30 o'clock that night he noticed one, Alice Ryan, soliciting men. He cautioned her and told her to go away but she refused. Later on the respondent saw a man passing and he saw Ryan pass this man and brush against him. He thereupon arrested Ryan and brought her to the Police Station, and on the following Monday morning he charged her with being a prostitute or night-walker, loitering or being in a thoroughfare or public place for the purpose of prostitution or solicitation to the annoyance of the inhabitants or passengers contrary to s. 14, sub-s. 11, of the Dublin Police Act, 1842 (5 & 6 Vict. c. 24).

After the respondent had given his evidence and whilst he was still in the dock beside Ryan, the latter slashed him twice across the face with a safety razor blade. As a result of the injuries, respondent suffered from haemorrhage, shock and nervous prostration. He was taken to the Richmond Hospital, where his wounds were attended to, and he was detained in the Hospital till the 18th April, when he was discharged. By that time his wounds had healed but he was not fit to resume his duties. He resumed duty about the 11th or 12th June, but after about a month he became ill again, presumably as a result of the said injuries, and was incapacitated for a further period of two months. At the end of that period he was quite recovered and resumed his duties, and it is not suggested that he is not now fully recovered from the injuries, save that the scars constitute a disfigurement to his face.

It appears that the respondent had warned Ryan on previous occasions, apparently in connection with the same offence...