Reid v Commissioner of an Garda Síochána
| Jurisdiction | Ireland |
| Judge | O'Donnell J. |
| Judgment Date | 10 April 2019 |
| Neutral Citation | [2019] IESC 21 |
| Court | Supreme Court |
| Docket Number | [S:LE:IE:2014:000411] |
| Date | 10 April 2019 |
[2019] IESC 21
THE SUPREME COURT
O'Donnell Donal J.
Clarke C.J.
O'Donnell Donal J.
O'Malley Iseult J.
[S:LE:IE:2014:000411]
AND
False imprisonment – Trespass to the person – Preliminary question – Plaintiff seeking to set aside the order of the High Court – Whether the defendants could satisfy the test for withdrawing the case from the jury
Facts: The plaintiff/appellant, Mr Reid, claimed false imprisonment and trespass to the person arising out of an arrest made on foot of a warrant issued, apparently lawfully, but erroneously. The issue as it arose in this case needed to be approached through the preliminary question of the test that a trial judge sitting with a jury should apply when invited to withdraw the case from the jury at the conclusion of the evidence.
Held by the Supreme Court (O’Donnell J) that there was a relevant issue of fact which was for the jury to resolve and accordingly the defendants/respondents, the Commissioner of An Garda Síochána, the Minister for Justice and Equality, Ireland and the Attorney General, could not satisfy the test for withdrawing the case from the jury.
O’Donnell J held that he would allow the appeal, set aside the order of the High Court, and remit the matter to the High Court for a full hearing.
Appeal allowed.
This unusual case raises important points about the proper approach to be taken to claims of false imprisonment and trespass to the person arising out of an arrest made on foot of a warrant issued, apparently lawfully, but erroneously. The issue as it arises in this case must be approached, however, through the preliminary question of the test that a trial judge sitting with a jury should apply when invited to withdraw the case from the jury at the conclusion of the evidence.
On 20 May 2010, an incident occurred at the Northside Shopping Centre in Dublin when a sports jersey was alleged to have been stolen from the Life Style Sports shop. An individual was arrested, charged in connection with that offence, and was released on bail and required to attend court at District Court No. 2, Criminal Courts of Justice, Parkgate Street, Dublin 8, at 10.30 a.m. on 10 June 2010. The person arrested and charged in connection with the offence gave his name as Paul Reid, and his address as 81 North William Street Flats, North Strand, Dublin, and, significantly, provided a date of birth. The person charged did not attend court on 10 June 2010 and, accordingly, a bench warrant (being a warrant to arrest a person accused and remanded on bail who fails to appear in court) was issued by the judge of the District Court. This in itself was far from unusual: bench warrants are often issued, particularly in the District Court, and their execution is a relatively standard part of the work of the Gardaí.
Eight months later, on 9 February 2011, at around half an hour past midnight, the appellant, Mr. Paul Reid, was sitting with his partner, Ms. Jean Burns, in the apartment they shared on the second floor of 87 The Quay, Waterford. They were watching television. Mr. Reid was born in Dublin, and the address on the warrant was his mother's address, where he did not live, but which he sometimes used. The date of birth which had been given to the Gardaí at the Northside Shopping Centre in May was, indeed, his date of birth. There is, however, no dispute that he was not the person arrested at the Northside Shopping Centre who failed to attend court on 10 June 2010. It is plain that the person arrested clearly knew enough about the appellant to give an address associated with him and his date of birth. While nothing turns on it for the purposes of this appeal, it appears from some of the evidence given that it is likely that the person was his brother. One further strange feature of this case is that this is not the only occasion on which the appellant has been the victim of what might be described as ‘identity theft’. It appears that his name and address have been used by others in relation to court appearances and, even more seriously, in a false application for passport.
There is much that is unclear in this unusual case, but it does appear that in the course of 8 February 2011, Garda Joyce in Waterford checked the PULSE system in relation to the residents of an old building converted into flats at 87 The Quay, Waterford, one of whom was the appellant, and found the bench warrant from 10 June 2010. Two members of An Garda Síochána, Garda Joyce and Garda Corcoran from the Warrants Office, went to the premises that evening, sometime around midnight, to execute the warrant against the appellant. As they approached the building, the door was opened and, as a result, they gained access to the building generally. They then went to the appellant's apartment and knocked on the door. There is a clear dispute as to what exactly transpired thereafter. The appellant maintains that he heard one knock and told his partner not to answer it because he thought it was the people upstairs who, particularly in the evening, were in the habit of looking for things from the appellant and his partner. He agreed with his own counsel that the building was a messy place. The appellant's evidence was that the next thing that occurred was that the door was kicked in and the Gardaí came into the apartment, shining torches, and arrested him. He maintained that if the people at the door had identified themselves, he would have opened it:–
‘If they would have said they were guards I would have opened it. I had no reason not to open it. I never heard them saying that it was the guards. If I would have heard it was the guards I would got up and opened the door. I would have been surprised why they are knocking at that hour of the night but, do you know what I mean?’ (Transcript of Hearing, High Court, Day 1, 30 April 2014, p. 36, Q. 55).
The Gardaí, for their part, gave evidence that they repeatedly identified themselves, announced that they had a bench warrant, knocked again, repeated who they were, and knocked once more. They could see there was someone in the flat. At that point, in the words of Garda Joyce, it was said through the door:
‘…look, we are here with a bench warrant for Paul Reid. This warrant entitles me to enter the premises by force if needs be. That means your door will be put in and I will not have the expense of having it repaired. It will fall to you because I'm acting on a legal document and there was still no answer.’ (Transcript of Hearing, High Court, Day 2, 1 May 2014, pp. 46-47, Q. 170).
At that stage, Garda Joyce said that he distinctly remembered saying:–
‘…look you're leaving us with no choice but to actually put in the door’ (Transcript of Hearing, High Court, Day 2, 1 May 2014, p. 47, Q. 174).
That, he said, was something that Gardaí did not do lightly, because there could often be an issue with landlords and their superior officers asking them why they had put in the door when they were not sure the person was there. This evidence was largely supported by Garda Corcoran. The trial judge observed during the cross-examination of the appellant that:–
‘[The] whole details surrounding…[the circumstances of the arrest] are very much in conflict apparently.’ (Transcript of Hearing, High Court, Day 2, 1 May 2014, p. 19).
Once in the apartment, it appears that the appellant's date of birth was established, which appeared to match the date of birth on the charge sheet which was attached to the warrant. The appellant was then arrested and handcuffed. There was quite a calm exchange and the appellant maintained that it was a case of mistaken identity. The Gardaí agreed that the exchange was amicable. In the words of Garda Joyce:–
‘Again there was no struggles, there was no anything, it was perfectly amicable I suppose you'd call it. He came down the stairs and all the way down he was protesting that I had the wrong person. But again I sort of said to him, look, Paul, I said, you've admitted you're Paul Reid, you've admitted that is your family home address, you have admitted that is your date of birth, I said I don't think there are two Paul Reids the same you know.’ (Transcript of Hearing, High Court, Day 2, 1 May 2014, p. 51, Q. 191).
Under cross-examination, Garda Joyce agreed that the event was not confrontational, there was no aggression on either side, and it was very amicable. He said that this remained the position and continued during the car journey to the Garda station (Transcript of Hearing, High Court, Day 2, 1 May 2014, p. 77, Q. 337 to Q. 340).
It is common case that the appellant protested that the warrant was a case of mistaken identity. Indeed, Garda Joyce gave evidence that he was inclined to believe the appellant when he denied being the person the subject of the warrant, and gave evidence that there was a discussion as to who it might have been that would have given his name. It was suggested by the Gardaí that the appellant said that it must have been his brother. In an exchange with the trial judge, Garda Joyce confirmed his evidence that he was inclined to believe the appellant when he said it was mistaken identity:–
‘Judge, in talking to him coming up in the car that night, that was when I really would have formed my opinion but in saying that, people, as I clarified earlier, people would often say to me when I had arrested them, look, Guard it wasn't me, so I can't be sure, I can't be certain and I have no way of actually verifying at that hour of the night.
Judge: But in the car you became, you were inclined to believe him?
A: In the car I sort of, you know, well, I was feeling that there may be something in it you know because our...
To continue reading
Request your trial