Man may sue over incorrect garda statement during case, court rules

A man described by a prosecuting garda inspector to a sentencing judge as having 19 previous convictions when in fact he had none may pursue a claim for damages against the Garda Commissioner and the State, the Supreme Court has ruled.

In a potentially significant decision, the court ruled the man’s claim must be confined to seeking to establish negligence behind the statements made in court by the inspector while presenting the case for the DPP.

Insofar as any general damage to reputation is concerned, it seemed such a claim is bound to fail because to hold otherwise would be to accept it is possible to get around the “carefully crafted” boundaries of defamation law, the Chief Justice, Mr Justice Frank Clarke, stressed.

The court will decide later the precise parameters of the claim the man may pursue.

Outlining the background, Mr Justice Clarke said the error occurred when the man, who had pleaded guilty to drink driving, appeared in 2010 before a District Court judge for sentencing.

The Inspector confused the man with another man of the same name and described him as having a significant criminal record and 19 previous convictions which was “completely wrong”.

That account was strongly contested by the man’s solicitor who suggested an error had been made.

The District Judge went ahead with the sentencing without, it would appear, taking the alleged previous convictions into account, the Chief Justice said.

Despite this, the erroneous account of the previous convictions was reported in the local media and the man claimed he suffered significant adverse consequences.

After the District Court hearing, his solicitors wrote to the Garda Síochána seeking an admission of liability, a published written apology and compensation for the injury and distress arising from the actions of the State.

They also asked that a Garda Superintendent appear before the District Court to outline the inaccuracy of the information provided by the Inspector, formally correct the public record, apologise to the man and allow the media to report on that.

The Garda force did not agree to any of that.

Complex question

The man initiated High Court proceedings claiming damages for negligence, breach of duty and negligent misrepresentation.

The High Court granted a pre-trial application by the State defendants to dismiss the case on the basis that, as pleaded, it amounted to a claim of defamation based on a statement made in court when such statements are immune from suit.

The man then appealed to the Supreme Court which this week allowed the appeal this week and ruled the man could proceed.

The Chief Justice said it is “at least arguable” a person may be able to maintain a claim for negligent misstatement where, although the alleged injury claimed relates principally to loss of reputation, it can also be established economic loss has occurred as well.

There is sufficient doubt about the precise parameters of any duty of care which might be owned by a person, such as the Garda Inspector in this case, to anyone else arising out of the conduct of court proceedings such that it cannot be said the man’s proceedings will be bound to fail on the basis of an absence of a duty of care, he also said.

While there may well be grounds for believing the Inspector cannot be sued having regard to the proper characterisation of his role in the District Court case, that is a “complex” question and not one where it can be said with sufficient clarity that the defence will win on the grounds of immunity alone, he said.

Earlier, the Chief Justice remarked some aspects of the manner in which the Garda force handled their mistake in the man’s case “do not reflect particularly well on the force”.

There was a “belated acceptance” that the statement made in court was wrong, coupled with a written statement of regret, but the Garda declined to go into court and correct the record, he said.

Whatever may be the legal consequences, if any, had that been done, it did not seem reasonable to fail to make a public correction of a what was accepted to be a “damaging but erroneous” statement made by a senior Garda in open court, he said.