Rochford v Kelly and Others

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Court: High Court
• Judge: Mr. Justice Garrett Simons
• Judgment Date: 08 May 2025
• Neutral Citation: [2025] IEHC 251
• Docket Number: 2019 8090 P

Between/

Patrick (Otherwise Paddy) Rochford

Plaintiff

and

Patrick (Otherwise Pat) Kelly

Commissioner of an Garda Síochána

Director of Public Prosecutions

Minister for Justice Equality and Law Reform

Attorney General

Ireland

John Hunt

Rory Sheriff

John McDonald

Richard Daly

Defendants

[2025] IEHC 251

2019 8090 P

THE HIGH COURT

False imprisonment – Malicious prosecution – Malicious procurement of a search warrant – Plaintiff claiming damages – Whether the Gardaí acted lawfully

Facts: The plaintiff, Mr Rochford, advanced a claim for false imprisonment (wrongful arrest), malicious prosecution and malicious procurement of a search warrant. He claimed damages in the sum of €500,000. He challenged three different stages of the criminal process: his arrest for alleged public order offences; his subsequent criminal prosecution for those alleged offences; and the application for and issuance of a search warrant in relation to an alleged offence of harassment. The High Court considered the reasonableness of the actions of the investigating and prosecuting Gardaí; in each instance, the legal threshold applicable to the respective action required a consideration of whether the Gardaí involved had “reasonable or probable cause” or “reasonable grounds” for suspecting that a criminal offence had been committed.

Held by the Court that the Gardaí acted lawfully. The Court held that the plaintiff’s query whether a breach of the peace might realistically have occurred when he was on his own with the Gardaí was not a well founded submission for two reasons: first, the principal factor which gave rise to a reasonable apprehension for the safety of persons and for the maintenance of the public peace was that the plaintiff intended to go into the marquee where Minister Howlin was present; and secondly, the Supreme Court had confirmed that the fact that only members of An Garda Síochána were present during an alleged offence involving the occasioning of a breach of the peace did not preclude the possibility of the offence being carried out (Clifford v Director of Public Prosecutions [2013] IESC 43). The High Court held that not only had the plaintiff failed to establish that there was no reasonable or probable cause for the institution of a criminal prosecution, he had also failed to establish that either Garda Kelly or Superintendent McDonald acted with malice; thus, one of the crucial proofs for a claim for malicious prosecution was missing. The Court was not satisfied that the plaintiff’s arguments negated the existence, as of May 2017, of reasonable grounds for suspecting the commission of the criminal offence of harassment. The Court was satisfied that the investigating officers had reasonable grounds both for suspecting that the search and seizure of electronic devices would yield evidence relating to the commission of an offence of harassment, and for considering that a search warrant was required, i.e. that there were no less intrusive measures available for effectively obtaining the evidence. The Court was also satisfied that there was sufficient material put before the District Court judge to ensure effective judicial control and to allow the judge to make an informed decision to authorise the search for, and seizure of, electronic devices. The High Court found that the plaintiff had been unable to point to any factor which could justify a finding of malice.

The Court held that the plaintiff’s claim must be dismissed in its entirety.

Claim dismissed.

Appearances

The Plaintiff appeared as a litigant in person

Jarlath Ryan SC and Mark Finan for the Defendants instructed by the Chief State Solicitor

JUDGMENT of Mr. Justice Garrett Simons delivered on 8 May 2025

INTRODUCTION

1 These proceedings advance a claim for false imprisonment (wrongful arrest); malicious prosecution; and malicious procurement of a search warrant. The Plaintiff claims damages in the sum of €500,000.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

2 The Plaintiff in these proceedings was born in March 1947 and is now a retiree. The Plaintiff resides at 53 Pondfields, New Ross, Co. Wexford.

3 The proceedings relate to events which occurred over the course of the years 2016 to 2018. The Plaintiff was arrested for alleged public order offences on 1 February 2016. The Plaintiff was subsequently prosecuted. The Plaintiff had been convicted before the District Court (12 July 2016) but was acquitted, on appeal, by the Circuit Court (16 February 2017).

4 Towards the end of March 2017, one of the Gardaí who had been involved in the arrest and prosecution made a complaint against the Plaintiff of “ harassment” contrary to the Non-Fatal Offences against the Person Act 1997. The complaint of harassment related, inter alia, to Facebook posts which were alleged to have been published by the Plaintiff. The complaint of harassment was assigned to an independent detective inspector and detective sergeant for investigation. As part of the investigation, a search warrant was obtained and executed against the Plaintiff's home on 16 May 2017. A number of electronic devices were seized and sent for forensic examination. A file was submitted to the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions on 17 August 2018. The Office of the DPP directed no prosecution on 10 September 2018.

5 The Plaintiff instituted these proceedings by way of plenary summons in October 2019. The Plaintiff has joined, as defendants to the proceedings, a large number of individual Garda officers together with certain State entities. In some instances, it is unclear as to what, if any, claim is being made against certain of the defendants. For example, the Director of Public Prosecutions has been joined to the proceedings but had no involvement in the arrest, public order prosecution, nor the search warrant the subject-matter of the claim.

6 The proceedings came on for hearing in February 2025. The case had been called on by the parties for eight days. The actual hearing took slightly longer: the oral evidence was heard over eight days, with a ninth day dedicated to the hearing of legal submissions. One day of the scheduled hearing had been lost as a result of sickness on the part of the Plaintiff. The hearing concluded on 21 March 2025.

7 The Plaintiff appeared as a litigant in person and is elderly. To facilitate him, a number of accommodations were made as follows. First, the Plaintiff was permitted, at his request, to participate remotely for much of the hearing, i.e. by way of a video link via an online platform, rather than being required to attend physically in the courtroom. Most of the cross-examination of the Plaintiff took place in this way. Second, notwithstanding that the Plaintiff is the moving party and bears the onus of proof, this court directed that the Defendants deliver their written legal submissions first. This was done so as to allow the Plaintiff time to consider the submissions and to understand the nature of the legal issues arising in the proceedings. This court also directed that copies of the relevant case law be sent to the Plaintiff well in advance of the date scheduled for the delivery of his own written legal submissions. At the conclusion of the evidence, the Plaintiff was allowed a period of some three weeks to prepare his written legal submissions. Third, the Defendants agreed to provide overnight transcripts of the hearing to the Plaintiff gratis. This was done to allow the Plaintiff better understand the course of the evidence and the argument. It also allowed the Plaintiff the opportunity to identify where in the evidence the contradictions, which he alleged, were to be found. Fourth, the Plaintiff was provided with transcripts of the hearings of the criminal prosecution before the District Court and the Circuit Court. Again, this was done to facilitate the Plaintiff in identifying what he alleged were contradictions in the evidence given by the Garda witnesses as between those two court hearings. The Plaintiff ultimately failed to identify where the supposed contradictions were to be found in the transcripts.

8 The Plaintiff was recalled, on the eighth day of evidence (Day 9 of the transcript), to give evidence in relation to an additional issue in the following circumstances. Notwithstanding an agreement to provide voluntary discovery, the Plaintiff did not provide copies of relevant Facebook posts to the other side. The Facebook posts only became available during the course of the hearing by dint of the Plaintiff resetting the status of his Facebook account to “ public”. The Defendants subsequently identified a number of posts which they said were relevant to the question of the date upon which the Plaintiff first became aware that there would be no criminal prosecution in relation to the complaint of harassment. The Plaintiff had not addressed these Facebook posts during his previous evidence. To ensure fair procedures, the Plaintiff had been recalled briefly to allow him an opportunity to confirm or deny that he had published the Facebook posts, and, if he had published same, to provide the context for same.

9 Separately, the Defendants had also made an application to introduce evidence in respect of a minor conviction which had been entered against the Plaintiff in the 1980's. This application was made pursuant to section 7 of the Criminal Justice (Spent Convictions and Certain Disclosures) Act 2016. The application was refused in circumstances where this court was satisfied that the legacy conviction for a minor offence had no probative value in relation to any of the issues arising in these proceedings. There is no overlap—whether in terms of the nature of the offence or the parties—between that legacy conviction and the events the subject-matter of these proceedings. It would not be appropriate, therefore, to attach any weight at all to the legacy conviction.

DISCOVERY OF DOCUMENTS

10 The High Court (Coffey...