The High Court has been asked to strike out a man’s claim against the State over a Garda search of his haulage business premises in 2014.
The search of Francis McGuinness’s yard at Pinnock Hill, Cloghran near Swords, was part of a larger investigation into attacks on former Quinn Group premises around that time.
The yard was searched in August 2014 by gardaí investigating a March 2014 incident in which a Jeep Cherokee, which had its roof cut off and was filled with tyres, set on fire and driven into the lobby of the Quinn packaging plant at Ballyconnell, Co Cavan. Some €600,000 damage was done to the premises.
This had happened at a time when there were a number of incidents of damage, costing an estimated €3 million, to property owned by or connected to, the Aventas group, formerly the Quinn group, the court heard.
Romantasy, QuitTok and other words from a dystopia-coded year
Have Ireland’s data centre builders shot themselves in the foot through their own greed?
The old order of globalisation may be collapsing – and bringing Germany with it
Wonderwallets: the cost of everything in 2024, from Oasis tickets to Leinster House bike shelter
Gardaí obtained a search warrant from the District Court for the McGuinness yard saying they had a reasonable belief there was evidence there relating to the vehicle used in the attack in Ballyconnell. This included the cut-off section of the Jeep roof, registration plates and steel cuttings consistent with cut-offs from the metal used on the Jeep.
Mr McGuinness brought proceedings in 2014 seeking a copy of the sworn information that gardaí used to obtain the warrant. It was part of his main case in which he sought damages for matters including negligence, misfeasance in public office, trespass, and breach of his constitutional rights.
The Garda Commissioner and the State opposed the application claiming privilege on the basis that the information came from an informant whose identity needed to be protected and on the basis of public interest privilege associated with the investigation of crime. They have denied all of Mr McGuinness’s other claims.
The High Court rejected his application and the Court of Appeal upheld that decision.
On Tuesday, barrister Fred Gilligan, for the commissioner and the State, asked the High Court to strike out the entire case on the basis of delay.
Mr Gilligan argued, among other things, that once Mr McGuinness lost the High Court and Court of Appeal cases in relation to seeking the information, in 2018, he “lost interest in the case”.
It is now nine years since the event at the centre of the case occurred. Three gardaí who were involved in the search had retired and memories generally would have faded in relation to what happened that day, he said.
A judge, who may not hear the case for up to another two years, would have to decide issues of fact when the reality was that Mr McGuinness had delayed in prosecuting his action and it had taken four applications from the defendants to prompt action from him (McGuinness), counsel said.
The defendants were prejudiced by the delay and the balance of justice required the case be struck out, he said.
Eanna Mulloy SC, for Mr McGuinness, argued the case should not be struck out. He said the officers who had retired were not identified or what role they played in the search involving 40 gardaí who were part of a highly organised operation to search the premises.
This was unlike other cases where delay is cited and the evidence may fall short of what might be expected. His client had also been involved in other proceedings which arose out of steps taken by the State against him and that should be taken into account in considering the reasons for the delay, he said.
Mr Justice Conor Dignam said he would give his decision on Wednesday.