Minister certifying garda claim for minor injury failed to discharge duty

In the matter of the Garda Siochana (Compensation) Acts.

And in the matter of an application by Sergeant Phelim Patrick McGee.

Phelim Patrick McGee (plaintiff) v The Minister or Finance (defendant).

Garda Compensation Scheme - Statute - Application by injured garda - Certification by Minister of non minor injuries - Whether Minister failed to discharged statutory function - Whether certification perverse - Whether certification could be set aside - Garda Siochana (Compensation) Act 1941 (No 19), section 6.

The High Court (before Mr Justice Carney); judgment delivered 19 April 1996.

The Minister for Justice had authorised a garda to apply to the High Court for compensation - for minor injuries received in the course of duties which involved no special risk, such certification represented a failure on the Minister's part to discharge her statutory duty to filter out the advancement of trivial and minor claims.

Mr Justice Carney, in the High Court, so held in awarding the applicant the sum of £300 and costs.

Michael O'Donoghue BL for the plaintiff Anna O'Connor BL for the defendant.

MR JUSTICE CARNEY said that this was an application by a Garda sergeant stationed at Rathmines in Dublin who was on duty on 8 September 1993 although he was not assigned to any duty to which special risk attached. At approximately 8.30 am two prisoners were brought into the station. One of the prisoners, who was intoxicated and had been placed in a sitting position, suddenly rose and head butted the applicant causing the injuries which led to this application, namely a nose bleed and associated bruising which cleared completely within two to three weeks. Medical reports from the applicant's doctor and the Garda surgeon were considered.

Mr Justice Carney then set out the long title of the Garda Siochana (Compensation) Act 1941 and said that the Act was designed in the first instance to, compensate the dependants of members of the Gardai who had died from injuries inflicted in the course of their duties. Secondly, the Act provides for compensation for members on whom personal injuries not causing death had been inflicted. Mr Justice Carney noted that the formula personal injuries not causing death was used in the 1941 Act on no fewer than nine occasions which suggested that the minimum level of injury required to attract the benefit of the compensation code was considerably above that of a nose bleed and some associated bruising and discomfort.

The applicant had come before the court on foot of a certificate from the Minister for Justice issued pursuant to section 6(1)(b)(iii) of the Act.

Mr Justice Carney referred to section 6(1)(b) of the Act which provides that the Minister may refuse an application where she is of opinion that such injuries are of a minor character sustained in performing a duty not involving special risk, or if special risk was involved and a sum not exceeding one hundred pounds would be adequate compensation, then the Minister can pay the applicant such sum.

Section 6(1)(b)(iii) provides that in any other case the Minister shall authorise the applicant to apply to the High Court for compensation. Section 6(3) provides that the decision of the Minister shall be final and conclusive.

In authorising the applicant to apply to court for compensation Mr Justice Carney said that the Minister had, by necessary implication, certified the applicant's injuries to be non minor in character. In this, Mr Justice Carney said that the Minister's certification did violence to the English language and represented a failure on her part to discharge her statutory function to filter out the advancement of trivial and minor claims.

Mr Justice Carney said that the Minister for Finance had belatedly come to the same view and asked to have the certificate of the Minister for Justice set aside or disregarded as perverse within the meaning of the principles of State (Keegan) v Stardust Victims Compensation Tribunal [1986] IR 642. Mr Justice Carney said that he was precluded from doing this by virtue of the provision of section 6(3) and also by the fact that the Minister for Justice was not a party to these proceedings and the court was therefore obliged to proceed to assessment of compensation.

Mr Justice Carney assessed compensation in the sum of £300 and awarded the applicant his costs but noted that from an examination of previous cases such costs would amount at a minimum to a sum five times greater than the assessed compensation.

Solicitors: Mason Hayes & Curran (Dublin) for the plaintiff; Chief State Solicitor for the defendant.