Tracy v McDowell
| Jurisdiction | Ireland |
| Court | High Court |
| Judge | Mr. Justice Bernard J. Barton |
| Judgment Date | 20 July 2018 |
| Neutral Citation | [2018] IEHC 446 |
| Docket Number | [2006 No. 6407 P] |
| Date | 20 July 2018 |
[2018] IEHC 446
THE HIGH COURT
Barton J.
[2006 No. 6407 P]
AND
AND
AND
AND
AND
AND
AND
AND
AND
AND
AND
AND
AND
Causes of action – Prima facie case – Withdrawal of case– Defendants seeking to withdraw the case from the jury and to dismiss the action – Whether a prima facie case was made out
Facts: The defendants, Mr McDowell, the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Ireland, the Attorney General, the Commissioner of An Garda Síochána, the Director of Public Prosecutions, the Chief Executive of the Courts Service, Mr Neery, Mr Finucane, Mr Keenan, Mr Flynn, Mr Costello, Mr O'Connell and Mr O'Brien, applied to the High Court seeking to withdraw this case from the jury and to dismiss the action. A conflict existed on matters of fact material to the establishment of several causes of action between the evidence given by the second plaintiff, Ms Tracy, and the evidence given by the other witnesses called by the first plaintiff, Mr Tracy, a conflict revealed by the differences in the accounts of what happened in the hall of the plaintiff's home when three of the Garda defendants came to execute what on the face of it was a lawful warrant for the arrest and detention of the first plaintiff in Mountjoy Prison. The second plaintiff gave evidence of an assault which involved the first plaintiff being pushed to the ground, handcuffed and stood on. The Gardaí for their part gave evidence that they hadn't laid a hand on the first plaintiff; instead he gave an explanation which they accepted and they left the premises without executing the warrant.
Held by the Court that, having given due consideration of the evidence which was adduced together with the constituent legal ingredients of each of the causes of action which were pursued at trial, the jury properly directed on the law could not reasonably give a verdict for the plaintiffs in respect of any of the causes of action advanced.
The Court held that, a prima facie case not having been made out, it would accede to the applications for a direction to withdraw the case from the jury and dismiss the proceedings.
Application granted.
At the conclusion of the evidence counsel for the Defendants made applications, commonly but inaccurately referred to as an application for a non-suit, to withdraw the case from the jury and to dismiss the action. The Plaintiffs are unrepresented and oppose the applications. Submissions were made by and on behalf of the parties and have been considered by the Court.
At the outset, it is pertinent to observe that no issues of indemnity or contribution arise. The Defendants represented by Mr. McCarthy S.C. and Mr. Jackson have indicated an intention not to go into evidence if the application is unsuccessful. Mr. Compton, representing what I shall refer to as the Courts Services Defendants, has indicated an intention to go into evidence if his application is unsuccessful but only for the purpose of proving a document.
There are multiple causes of action pleaded in the statement of claim. In considering the applications the Court is required to have regard to each of the causes of action which were pursued in the course of the trial. The approach which the Court is required to adopt on an application for a direction to dismiss at the conclusion of the Plaintiff's case is well settled. See Hetherington v. Ultra-Tyres Service Ltd & Ors [1993] 2 I.R. 535; O'Toole v. Heavey [1993] 2 I.R. 544 and 1993 1 All ILRM 343; Cranny v. Kelly [1998] 1 IR 54; O'Donovan v. Southern Health Board [2001] 3 IR 385; Moorview Ltd v. First Active Plc [2009] IEHC 214 and Moorview Ltd v. First Active Plc [2010] IEHC 34.
The first Plaintiff submitted that cases involving negligence actions tried by a judge sitting alone were not relevant to the applications. He is mistaken in his understanding. It is clear from the judgments that these cases are authority for the approach which the court is required to adopt on applications for a non-suit whether made in an action for breach of contract or in actions brought in tort. The causes of action alleged in these proceedings are torts in respect...
To continue reading
Request your trial