Application for jury trial refused in civil proceedings against An Garda Siochana

Practice and procedure – application to transfer action into the jury list – husband and wife want their action tried by judge and jury – seeking to restrain any member of An Garda Síochána from attending at their home, from watching or besetting them at home and from harassing and intimidating them – proceedings commenced on the 21st December 2005 - granted interim injunctions - application for an order dismissing the proceedings on the ground of their inordinate and inexcusable delay in prosecuting them failed – their then solicitors served four separate notices of trial in 2011 –sought a jury trial - Gardai issued a motion seeking orders striking it out and directing the transfer of the proceedings into the non-jury list for trial before a judge sitting alone – their then solicitors notified the Gardaí’s solicitors that the matter had been set down and assigned a number in the non-jury list – motion struck out on consent – new solicitors argued that this matter was wrongly listed in the non-jury list - undisclosed and unspecified error was made by their former solicitors - no evidence at all - Order 36, rule 18 of the RSC provides that unless an action is set down for trial within 14 days after a notice of trial is given, the notice shall no longer be in force - if their notice of trial of the 6th July 2011 is still in force, it is because the matter was set down for trial in the non-jury list on the 18th July 2011 - right to jury trial in civil proceedings - the right to jury trial in civil matters has been gradually whittled away - s. 1 of the Courts Act 1988 - Claiming damages in respect of personal injuries to a person caused by negligence, nuisance or breach of duty not entitled to jury trial - the right to jury trial in civil matters has been gradually whittled away - statement of claim - false imprisonment or intentional trespass to the person - matters complained of there as amounting to intimidation, harassment and victimisation could not come within the definition of intentional trespass to the person - cannot be tried with a jury - not an action where the damages claimed consist only of damages for false imprisonment or intentional trespass to the person - not an action where the damages claimed consist of damages for false imprisonment or intentional trespass to the person or both and damages for another cause of action in respect of the same act or omission - the pre-existing right to jury trial in common law actions, otherwise preserved under s. 94 of the Courts of Justice Act 1924, is expressly removed from the plaintiffs in this case by operation of s. 1 of the Courts Act 1988 – they failed to establish on the balance of probabilities that the decision to set the matter down for trial in the non-jury list was an error on the part of their former solicitors – application for a jury trial refused.