A man who claims he spent over a year in prison after being wrongly accused of raping a woman, has sued the State.
The woman accused the man at the centre of the action of raping her following a party they, and others, had attended in February 2009.
The man, an EU national who currently lives in his native country, at all times vehemently denied the rape allegation.
Arising out of her complaint, the man was interviewed by gardaí and was released without charge. He was never re-interviewed. He also claims the Garda who took the only statement given by the complainant formed the opinion that she was under the influence of alcohol at the time she made the statement alleging rape.
The man then returned to his home country some time afterwards. A year later, he returned to Ireland to meet with a then employer at which point he was arrested and detained by gardaí and was charged with the offence of rape.
The man was remanded in custody after being refused bail by the District Court on the grounds that he represented a flight risk. However, he was granted bail by the High Court on condition he reside in Ireland, sign on daily with the gardaí and provide a €10,000 cash surety.
He was unable to meet those terms and remained in custody until June 2011.
Claim
A few weeks before he was due to go on trial for the offence he and his solicitor were provided with a file regarding the previous fabricated rape claim made by the woman.
Eighteen months prior to making the complaint against the man, the woman had claimed she was raped by another unrelated individual.
She later withdrew this allegation and admitted it was fabricated arising out of her frustration due to her history of sexual abuse, family problems and alcohol issues.
Consideration was given to prosecuting the woman for wasting Garda time, however, she was not charged with an offence due to her personal circumstances.
For the first time since his incarceration, the man and his solicitor discovered that the woman had previously admitted to fabricating the rape claim against the other male in 2007.
Shortly after the man received the information about the complainant, the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) entered 'a nolle prosequi' in the man's case, entering no prosecution, leading to the man being released from prison.
However, the man claims he suffered great harm due to his time in prison. He claims his relationship broke down, resulting in a lack of access to his daughter, and that he lost his job.
Damages
The man, represented by solicitor Adrian Shanley, has sued the Garda Commissioner, the DPP, Ireland, the Attorney General, and the Governors of Cloverhill and the Midlands Prisons.
In his action, he seeks damages for alleged malicious prosecution, breach of his constitutional rights, false imprisonment, negligence, and conscious abuse of statutory powers. The claims are denied.
The defendants state what they had done in this instance was carrying out the public functions as part of their public duties. They also claim the man has no permissible cause of action against them.
The case, which was initiated in 2012 and has a long procedural history, came before Ms Justice Niamh Hyland, who was asked to rule on a preliminary issue.
The man had sought formal replies to several written questions, known as interrogatories, from the Garda Commissioner and the DPP.
The man argued the replies sought in this case were necessary to obtain admissions of facts and information relevant to the case. The replies would also be beneficial to the administration of justice, it was submitted.
The application was opposed by the State on grounds including that the replies sought would prejudice a proper adjudication of the claim and were an attempt to avoid oral evidence and cross-examination at the hearing. The State also argued there was also a failure by the plaintiff to explain why the formal replies were necessary and a failure to identify any evidential deficit.
In her judgement Ms Justice Hyland said she was adjourning the plaintiff's motion. However, it could be re-entered before the court if the plaintiff wishes to proceed with this motion.
Should the plaintiff wish to do that, the judge added that the man's legal representatives must submit a sworn statement identifying the persons to whom each interrogatory is directed.
