William M. Trent (plaintiff) v The Commissioner of An Garda Siochana, the Garda Complaints Board, the Minister for Justice, the Attorney General and Ireland (defendants).
Negligence - Garda complaints - Damages - Plaintiff alleged failure by Gardai to respond to 999 call - Plaintiff alleged failure to get to truth of allegations - Irregularities in way in which com- plaints handled - Whether irregularities prejudiced plaintiff - Whether right to privacy violated by informal inquiry into plaintiff's background - Whether procedures of second defendant fair - Whether inclusion of comments of chief executive in report to second defendant offends principle that no man should be a judge in his own case - Garda Siochana (Complaints) Act 1986, sections 4, 6 and 7.
The High Court (Mr Justice O'Donovan); judgment delivered 15 January 1999.
WHILE there may have been procedural irregularities in the way in which the plaintiff's complaints were dealt with by the second defendant, the plaintiff was not thereby prejudiced as the plaintiff's complaints were fully and properly investigated. The High Court so held in dismissing the plaintiff's case and further stated that the principle that no man should be a judge in his own case was not offended by the inclusion in the report to the second defendant of comments and recommendations from the chief executive of the second defendant.
The plaintiff appeared in person; Robert Barron BL for the defendants.
MR JUSTICE O'DONOVAN said that the plaintiff was claiming damages for negligence and breach of constitutional and statutory duty as a result of the way in which complaints by the plaintiff to the Gardai and the Garda Complaints Board were dealt with. The plaintiff gave evidence that he made a "999" call on 2 September 1989 as a result of the presence of a group of cider drinking youths near his home. While the plaintiff initially claimed that the "999" call was not responded to, he accepted at the hearing of the action that Gardai had in fact responded but he claimed that the response was inadequate and, further, he claimed that his complaint in relation thereto was seriously mishandled.
Mr Justice O'Donovan said that the plaintiff was a witness who endeavoured to tell the truth but suffered from a form of persecution complex and had a perception of reality that differed from the norm. Evidence was heard to the effect that the plaintiff was not in fact at his home at the time that he alleged the cider drinking youths had gathered. However, Mr Justice O'Donovan accepted from the record of the Garda communications centre that the plaintiff definitely made the "999" call at 11.56 pm on 2 September 1989 and it was further accepted that while the Gardai did respond they did not in fact proceed far enough into the block of flats to be able to examine the entry tower to the flats where the plaintiff resided. On 4 September 1989 the plaintiff went to Kilmainham Garda Station to complain to Inspector McAndrew, leaving a letter for his attention. Following this Inspector McAndrew together with Sergeant Ward visited the plaintiff at his home on 18 September 1989.
Mr Justice O'Donovan said that he accepted that the purpose of this meeting was to ascertain the plaintiff's attitude to the complaint he had made and to advise the plaintiff as to the proper procedures for bringing a complaint to the Garda Complaints Board and was not, as the plaintiff claimed, for the purpose intimidating him into dropping his complaint.
Subsequently, the plaintiff attended at Kilmainham Garda Station and Inspector McAndrew filled out a complaint form on the plaintiff's dictation. However, after the form had been signed Inspector McAndrew, without the knowledge of the plaintiff, added the names of two members of the Gardai about whom the complaint had been made to the form.
Mr Justice O'Donovan said that the practice of adding names to a form without the knowledge of a person who signed the form, albeit motivated by a desire to provide the Garda Complaints Board with information, was a bad practice and should be discontinued. However, he was satisfied that no material harm had been thereby caused to the plaintiff and the plaintiff had also not been misled by the inspector in being advised to fill out the form even though section 4 of the Garda Siochana (Complaints) Act 1986 permits the making of an oral complaint to the board.
The complaint was acknowledged by the board and was given the reference number 890426. A further complaint was made by the plaintiff concerning the conduct of Inspector McAndrew. This further complaint was given the reference number 890734. The plaintiff was told by the office manager to the board on 9 March 1990 that his complaints would not be dealt with until a backlog of complaints were dealt with and he was further told that a previous complaint, numbered 880843, was not admissible. On 28 January 1991 Mr Sean D. Hurley, chief executive of the board, wrote to the plaintiff and, after apologising for the delay, told him that complaint 890426 was also inadmissible as it did not satisfy required statutory conditions. This decision became the subject of a further complaint.
On 13 February 1991 the plaintiff was advised that his two complaints would be put before the board for a final decision on their admissibility and this was the first time he was made aware that his second complaint (890734) was also rejected as inadmissible. Evidence was heard from Mr Hurley that the plaintiff should have been informed of this fact and the failure to do so was as a result of an oversight, which explanation the plaintiff rejected.
Mr Justice O'Donovan accepted that the failure to inform the plaintiff of the decision to reject the second complaint as being inadmissible was as result of an oversight. Further, no prejudice was caused by this fact because if the plaintiff had been so informed that decision would have been protested and submitted to the board which was in fact what happened. On 19 March 1991 the board ruled that complaint number 890734 was inadmissible but that complaint number 890426 would be admitted for investigation. On 24 May 1991 the plaintiff was informed that Superintendent Sheehan of Harcourt Street was appointed as investigating officer for complaint number 890426. During the currency of this investigation the plaintiff continued to make written and oral complaints about the way his complaints numbered 890426 and 890734 were handled. Mr Justice O'Donovan was satisfied that the plaintiff's grievance did not justify the stream of allegations of corruption which were made in these further complaints.
Superintendent Sheehan met the plaintiff at Kilmainham Garda Station on 24 June 1991 in the presence of other members of the Garda Siochana. He gave evidence that he investigated the complaint in all of its aspects and reported to the Chief executive of the board, Mr Hurley. Mr Hurley then prepared a submission on this report for the board and included thereon comments and recommendations. Thereafter, the board rejected the complaint and Mr Justice O'Donovan said that this was a conclusion that the board was entitled to reach.
Mr Justice O'Donovan said that ultimately it was the board who had to adjudicate on the complaint before it and therefore there was no breach of the principle that no man should be a judge in his own cause merely because Mr Hurley, the chief executive of the board, included comments and recommendations in the report to it. Further, the plaintiff had not established that he had a right to make oral representations to the board and it could not be said that the failure to invite him to make such representations could have a deleterious effect on him as the board's investigation could only effect the person against whom it was made. In any event a complaint in relation to procedures adopted by the board would be more properly the subject of judicial review proceedings. It was also clear from section 7 of the 1986 Act that the board was not required to give reasons for its decisions and therefore the plaintiff could have no complaint in that regard.
Mr Justice O'Donovan was of the view that the appointment of an inspector of the Garda Siochana to investigate the plaintiff's background and circumstances and to identify his concerns did not violate the plaintiff's constitutional right to privacy as the nature of the allegations he was making about members of the Garda Siochana meant that such enquiries as were carried out were justified in trying to ascertain the plaintiff's reliability. Accordingly the plaintiff's claim would be dismissed.
Solicitors: The plaintiff appeared in person; Chief State Solicitor for the defendants.