Garda ordered to disclose
identity of deceased suspect
historical abuse case
Rī˜‹ndī˜‹ll v Commissioner of An Gī˜‹rdī˜‹ SĆ­ochī˜„nī˜‹
[2024] IEHC 540 (High Courīš€, Kennedy J, 10
Sepīš€ember 2024)
High Court orders the disclosure of the identity
of a deceased suspect from a Garda
investigation into historical sexual abuse
allegations made by the plaintiļ¬€, who was a
child at the time of the alleged abuse. The court
did not, however, ļ¬nd it necessary to order the
release of the entire investigation ļ¬le at this
stage. The plaintiļ¬€ had sought this information
to identify and seek redress against the person
who sexually assaulted him. The court
recognised the plaintiff's need for the
suspect's identity to pursue potential civil
proceedings but emphasised that the broader
request for the investigation ļ¬le had not met
the threshold of necessity. The court left open
the possibility for the plaintiļ¬€ to make a further
application for additional information if
required after initiating proceedings.
...UNTO
ITSELF
Recent case law: Mark Tottenham
THE LAW...
POLITICS
Local authority not liable for
employee injuries in lorry
collision
Dī˜‹vey v Sligo Counīš€y Council [2023] IECA 39
(Courīš€ of Appeī˜‹l, NĆ­ Rī˜‹ifeī˜‹rīš€ī˜‹igh J, 23 Februī˜‹ry
2023)
Court of Appeal dismisses appeal from High
Court, and aļ¬ƒrms decision that a local authority
was not liable for the injuries sustained by an
employee when a lorry collided with a convoy
of local authority workers. The Court determined
that the Council could not have reasonably
foreseen the unique combination of
circumstances leading to the accident,
including a professional driver asleep at the
wheel, the vehicle's cruise control set above the
speed limit, and the weight of the lorry. The
Court concluded that the local authority's duty
of care did not extend to such an unusual and
remote possibility, and therefore, its alleged
failures did not legally cause the plaintiļ¬€'s
injuries.
Mandatory retirement at
70 afļ¬rmed for consultant
psychiatrist
Hollī˜‹nd v Heī˜‹līš€h Service Execuīš€ive [2024] IEHC
533 (High Courīš€, Bolger J, 30 Augusīš€ 2024)
High Court dismissed the claims of a consultant
psychiatrist who sought damages equivalent
to 18 months' salary beyond the mandatory
retirement age of 70, as well as inclusion in the
Health Service Executive's (HSE)
superannuation pension scheme. The court
found no basis for the applicant's entitlement
to salary continuation past the statutory
retirement age, which he did not challenge.
Additionally, the court rejected the applicant's
claim to the HSE pension scheme, noting he
had declined multiple oļ¬€ers to join the scheme
and was out of time to challenge his non-
membership. The court also determined that
the applicant's statutory claims related to ļ¬xed-
term employment were not amenable to judicial
review and should have been addressed
through the Workplace Relations Commission.
Murder conviction upheld
despite debate over mental
disorder and intoxication
impact
DPP v Wī˜‹rd [2024] IECA 227 (Courīš€ of Appeī˜‹l, NĆ­
Rī˜‹ifeī˜‹rīš€ī˜‹igh J, 27 June 2024)
Court of Appeal upholds the murder conviction
of an individual who fatally stabbed his spouse,
rejecting the appeal against the conviction on
multiple grounds. The appellant had accepted
responsibility for the stabbing but claimed
diminished responsibility due to a mental
disorder exacerbated by intoxication. The court
found that expert testimony on the interaction
between the appellant's mental disorder and
intoxication was permissible and appropriately
considered by the jury. The original decision by
the trial court was aļ¬ƒrmed, with the Court of
Appeal concluding that the trial judge did not
err in his rulings on the admissibility of evidence
and the scope of cross-examination, nor in his
instructions to the jury regarding intoxication
and intent.
Identiļ¬cation from CCTV and
ear defect is upheld in ļ¬rearms
possession case
Direcīš€or of Public Prosecuīš€ions v Shī˜‹rloīš€īš€
[2024] IECA 222 (Courīš€ of Appeī˜‹l, Kennedy J, 29
July 2024)
Court of Appeal dismisses an appeal against a
conviction for possession of ļ¬rearms and
ammunition, aļ¬ƒrming the original decision of
the trial court. The appellant challenged the
fairness of using a custody photograph and a
Garda commentary on CCTV footage to identif y
a distinctive ear defect. The court found that the
evidence was admissible and the trial process
fair, with the jury entitled to assess the
circumstantial evidence, including the CCTV
footage and the appellant's DNA on items
found at the crime scene. The appeal was
dismissed on the grounds that the identiļ¬cation
process and the Garda commentary did not
prejudice the jury to an extent requiring a
discharge.
October-November 2024 37
VillageOctNov24.indb 37 03/10/2024 14:27