Murphy v Commissioner of an Garda Síochána
| Jurisdiction | Ireland |
| Judge | Mr. Justice Micheál O'Higgins |
| Judgment Date | 24 October 2023 |
| Neutral Citation | [2023] IEHC 680 |
| Court | High Court |
| Docket Number | RECORD NO 2021/5508 P |
[2023] IEHC 680
RECORD NO 2021/5508 P
THE HIGH COURT
Niall Gaffney BL instructed by Donal Farrelly & Co. Solicitors for the plaintiff.
Grainne Fahey BL instructed by the State Claims Agency for the defendants.
EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT of Mr. Justice Micheál O'Higgins delivered on the 24 th October 2023
. This is the first defendant's appeal from the order of the Deputy Master dated the 3 rd of May 2023. The Commissioner of An Garda Síochána is objecting to discovery of information that Gardaí placed before a District Judge at the time of applying for a warrant to search the plaintiff's dwelling. The Commissioner also objects to discovery of any documents pertaining to the belief of the gardaí that the target of the warrant was, at the time, residing in the plaintiff's home. The case raises issues of discovery, state confidentiality and constitutional issues concerning the inviolability of the dwelling.
. According to the plaintiff's personal injury summons, on or about the 9 th of May 2020, the plaintiff was a single mother with two young children who was shopping in her locality when she was informed by a neighbour that members of An Garda Síochána had broken into her home. It is pleaded that the back gate to the plaintiff's property was damaged, and admittance was gained through a window of the house. The plaintiff duly returned to her property and found that it had been entered and a number of items were strewn around the place. She later reported the matter to Garda David Tracey at her local garda station and he apparently indicated that there had been a mistake, and that gardaí had entered the wrong house.
. It is pleaded that a number of gardaí had entered the house and ransacked all of the bedrooms upstairs and left all the doors open. The blinds in the back room had been down but were now open to the public. Letters belonging to the plaintiff were examined in her room and left out on the dressing table. Cushions had been left on the floor in the sitting room. Two bay windows at the dwelling house were wide open.
. Members of An Garda Síochána were in the house for a considerable number of minutes and conducted a search. There was some damage to the back gate insofar as two laths were removed. Books belonging to one of the plaintiff's children had been scrutinised. The plaintiff and her two young boys were distraught over what had occurred, and as to what they encountered when they came back from the shopping trip. The plaintiff and her two children were very upset at this turn of events, particularly as to what was the suggested cause of this garda incursion into their dwelling. They had given no cause to the gardai to invade the privacy of their home. They had been peaceful and law-abiding citizens at all material times.
. It is pleaded that in the premises, the gardaí were involved in an unlawful intrusion into the plaintiff's home and that, subsequently when they realised that they had made a grievous mistake, and had clearly attended the wrong house, they proceeded to leave the premises. The plaintiff was left deeply traumatised and this occurred in a context where she had a previous history of anxiety and postnatal depression. Her psychological difficulties were greatly exacerbated by the unwarranted intrusion into her dwelling house by members of An Garda Síochána. The aforesaid acts on the part of the gardaí constituted a wrongful and unlawful invasion of the plaintiff's dwelling house and same was carried out in violation of the plaintiff's constitutional rights.
. The indorsement of claim sets out detailed particulars of personal injuries including psychological injuries, loss and damage. In the prayer to the indorsement of claim it is pleaded that damages are being sought for:
(i) Failing to vindicate the plaintiff's constitutional rights;
(ii) Breaching the plaintiff's constitutional rights;
(iii) Intermittently and recklessly inflicting emotional suffering;
(iv) Trespass;
(v) Invasion of privacy;
(vi) Negligence;
(vii) Breach of duty of care;
(viii) Misfeasance of public officers (sic).
. It is also pleaded that, having regard to the foregoing matters, the plaintiff claims aggravated and exemplary damages.
. Insofar as they are material, the following pleas are made by the first defendant at para. 3 of its defence:
“(i) The entry into the Plaintiff's dwelling house by members of An Garda Síochána was pursuant to a warrant issued on the 9 th May 2020 to Garda Diarmuid Loughnane. Entry was effected through an open upstairs window without force.
(ii) Prior to An Garda Síochána entering the house, the Gardai spent an hour attempting to make contact with the target of the warrant, believed to be resident in the Plaintiff's dwelling house.
(iii) It is denied that damage was caused to the Plaintiff's dwelling house or to her personal property therein, or that of her children. Papers were located upstairs in the Plaintiff's dwelling house that raised concerns that the target of the warrant did not reside in the Plaintiff's property, and therefore the Gardai immediately retreated from the property leaving no damage to the interior or the exterior.
(iv) Superintendent O'Callaghan visited the Plaintiff and apologised to her.
(v) The pleaded narrative of the intrusion by members of An Garda Siochana into the Plaintiff's dwelling house is denied…
(vi) . .. .
(vii) At all material times the First named Defendant acted in good faith in the discharge of its statutory duty in or about the execution of search warrants [for the address in question]”.
. By correspondence dated the 26 th of May 2022, the plaintiff sought 3 categories of discovery as follows:
“(a) Search Warrant and all information laid before the District Court to obtain the warrant…
(b) All documentation pertaining to the belief that the target of the warrant was resident in the Plaintiff's dwelling house…
(c) All documentation… pertaining to the surveillance of the plaintiff's dwelling house”.
. In the course of the motion hearing, I was told that the defendants have agreed to provide the search warrants and also documents coming within category (c) above, namely documents pertaining to the surveillance of the plaintiff's home. The dispute between the parties concerns whether the plaintiff is entitled to discovery in terms of category (a) (save for the warrant), in other words, the information put before the District Judge and category (b), being all documents pertaining to the belief that the target of the warrant was residing in the plaintiff's home. Accordingly, category (a) (save for the warrant) and category (b) were the subject of a contested discovery application before the Deputy Master of the High Court on the 3 rd of May 2023. The Deputy Master granted discovery of the information laid before the District Court to obtain the warrant and also documents coming within category (b) as detailed above. The affidavit of Adeline Tuffy, solicitor for the State Claims Agency, indicates that the Deputy Master granted liberty to the defendants to file an affidavit so that the confidentiality issue could be put on affidavit and could ultimately be argued before a High Court judge.
. The plaintiff's application for discovery is grounded on the affidavit of Donal Farrelly, solicitor, sworn on the 14 th of February 2023. At para. 9 he avers that the defendant filed a full defence and whilst accepting that on the 9 th of May 2020, members of An Garda Síochána entered the plaintiff's house, and had subsequently returned and apologised for what transpired, the defendants further plead that the garda entered the property through an open upstairs window, and that the entry was without any force. He states that it was also believed that papers were located upstairs in the plaintiff's dwelling house and that this raised concerns that the target of the warrant did not reside in the plaintiff's property and therefore An Garda Síochána immediately retreated from the property, leaving no damage to the interior or exterior. He refers to the further plea in the defence that at all material times the first defendant acted in good faith to discharge their statutory duty in or about the execution of the search warrant.
. Mr. Farrelly makes the case that the information as laid before the District Court is relevant to the issues in the case and should be furnished to the plaintiff. He contends that the defendants had obtained a warrant to search the premises of the plaintiff in circumstances where they did not admit that the warrant should not have been obtained for such a search, and in circumstances where they clearly plead in their defence that they spent an hour attempting to make contact with the target of the warrant.
. Mr. Farrelly concludes his affidavit with the averment that discovery of the documents referenced in the notice of motion is necessary for the fair disposal of the action and indeed for the saving of costs in the matter.
. In relation to both categories of discovery sought, the defendants resist the application for discovery on the basis that the documents sought are confidential and are not relevant to the plaintiff's case. The defendants will claim privilege, if the plaintiff's application for discovery is successful, but resist the granting of discovery because of concerns around listing the documents in the affidavit and being exposed to a challenge to a claim of privilege. The defendants are concerned that even listing documents in an affidavit creates an operational risk and has a “chilling effect” on members of An Garda Síochána carrying out their duties in the investigation of crime.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial