The High Court has cleared the way for a Dublin man to sue the State over alleged malicious prosecution.
James Walsh claims he was the victim of a malicious prosecution for allegedly threatening to kill and cause serious harm to journalist Paul Williams. Mr Walsh was acquitted, following two trials, of the charges by a jury in 2007.
Mr Justice Paul Gilligan on Friday (yesterday) refused an application by the State and Garda Commissioner have Mr walsh's proceedings struck out over want of prosecution and inordinate delay.
While there was delay in advancing the case, no prejudice to the defendants had been demonstrated and the action should be allowed to proceed to hearing before a judge and jury, Mr Justice Gilligan ruled.
In his action, Mr Walsh, Dunmore Park, Kingswood Heights, Dublin 24, claims he was prosecuted for offences that never occurred, which the State authorities knew from the beginning had not occurred and which were impossible for him to commit.
In proceedings against the Garda Commissioner, Ireland and Attorney General, he is seeking punitive and exemplary damages over the alleged malicious and wholly corrupt actions of the defendants. The claims are denied.
The defendants also argued the claim was “speculative in nature” and that Mr Walsh was making unsubstantiated allegations against gardai. It was the DPP, not gardaí, who decided to prosecute Mr Walsh, the defendants add.
In a pretrial motion, the defendants argued inordinate delay justified an order striking out Mr Walsh’s action.
The State parties argued Mr Walsh failed to progress his civil action with expedition. He had served a statement of claim in October 2009, two years after his acquittal and a defence was filed in July 2010.
On two occasions since then, Mr Walsh had failed to attend court resulting in his notice of trial being struck out, the defendants argued.
Mr Walsh had argued the reasons for the delay included that he had not secured legal representation until 2014 and health problems. The defendants disputed that those reasons justified the delay.
Mr Walsh, represented by solicitor Anne Fitzgibbon, argued that even if there had been a delay, the balance of justice favoured allowing the case go to trial and the defendants had not shown they suffered any prejudice to them as a result of any alleged delay.
Mr Justice Gilligan said the delay in this case was inordinate and inexcusable and no allowance could be made for the period of time Mr Walsh did not have a solicitor. No valid reason had been given for the delay in the prosecution of the claim, he said.
However, he was not satisfied the defendants’ capacity to meet the claim and advance their defence had been compromised by the delay to the extent that a fair trial was in peril, he added.
Looking at the conduct of both sides, the defendants had delayed in delivering their defence to the claim until after a motion for judgment in default of defence was issued by Mr Walsh, he said. The defence could have sought to have the case struck out much earlier, he added.
The court had to consider the actions of both parties in the litigation, he said. In the absence of any indication of any prejudice in the particular circumstances and having regard to the issue of fairness between the parties, it seemed appropriate to refuse the strike out orders. The proceedings should be brought on for hearing at the earliest possible opportunity, he added.