Court of Appeal: a) dismisses appeal of High Court ruling concerning allegations that members of An Garda Síochána engaged in a conspiracy to injure the plaintiff's reputation and to violate his constitutional rights after he was suspected of killing woman in West Cork, save in respect of the ruling that the claim in respect of the alleged wrongful disclosure of information by the Gardaí in advance of the defamation proceedings in December 2003 was statute-barred; and b) directs a re-trial in respect of that part only of the plaintiff’s claim on the grounds that: 1) the trial judges properly decided that many of the plaintiff's claims were statute-barred, and it was not unfair to permit the State defendants to raise the application of the Statute of Limitations; 2) the conspiracy aspect of the plaintiff’s claim was not statute-barred, and that he was accordingly correct in allowing this matter to go to the jury; 3) issues that arose during the course of the evidence of some witnesses did not provide any basis for concluding that the trial was other than satisfactory; 4) the trial judge correctly excluded the proposed evidence of a witness claiming to be an expert in the taking of statements, police practices in this jurisdiction in 1996-1997, and properly warned another witness regarding her evidence.
Unlawful arrest – appeal of High Court ruling concerning allegation members of An Garda Síochána engaged in a conspiracy to injure the plaintiff's reputation and to violate his constitutional rights – damages, for unlawful arrest, false imprisonment, malicious prosecution, assault, battery, and trespass to the person, intentional infliction of emotional and psychological harm, harassment, intimidation, terrorising and oppressive behaviour, severe personal injuries – Statute of Limitations 1957 – s. 11 of the 1957 Act – whether the claims were statute-barred – legality of the arrests of Mr. Bailey – taking of the statements from Ms. Marie Farrell efforts made to ensure that Martin Graham would befriend Mr. Bailey and seek to obtain an admission from him – the Malachy Boohig incident – whether the State was entitled to raise the Statute of Limitations and whether the action was statute-barred, whether in whole or in part – whether the defendants should be permitted to raise the Statute of Limitations – the plaintiff’s conspiracy claims and the Statute of Limitations – section 11(6) of the Civil Liability Act 1961 – s.3(2) of the Statute of Limitations (Amendment) Act 1991 – appeal must be allowed in respect of this separate discrete claim and this claim (namely, whether there was an unlawful disclosure of information contained in witness statements by members of the Gardaí – rulings in relation to opinion evidence – no unfairness to the appellant in how the evidence of Mr. Barnes was dealt with – issues that arose during the course of the evidence of Mr. Barnes, Mr. Sheehan and Mr. Hamilton did not provide any basis for concluding that the trial was other than satisfactory – exclusion of the evidence of Robert Quick – trial judge was correct to exclude the proposed evidence of Mr. Quick – whether the trial judge was wrong to have administered a warning to Ms. Farrell regarding her evidence and that he compounded that error in the presence of the jury – cross-examination of Ms. Farrell – appeal and cross appeal should be dismissed save with respect to the unlawful disclosure of information issue – appeal allowed in respect of the ruling that the claim in respect of the alleged wrongful disclosure of the information by the Gardaí in advance of the defamation proceedings in December 2003 was statute-barred, and re-trial directed in respect of that part only of the plaintiff’s claim.