BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!

1. The Plaintiff in this case, William Trent, comes before the Court seeking damages for alleged violation of Constitutional Rights and damages for negligence, breach of duty (including breach of statutory duty) and the alleged denial of his statutory rights by the Defendants, their servants or agents.

2. At the outset, it is relevant to note that, for whatever reason, Mr. Trent opted to conduct the trial of this Action on his own behalf, without legal representation, in the course of which he gave evidence under oath and submitted to cross-examination. In this connection, while there was serious conflict between evidence tendered by Mr. Trent in the witness box and that given by several witnesses, who gave evidence on behalf of the defence, I am satisfied that Mr. Trent did not come to Court with the intention of telling deliberate untruths, nor did he do so. Indeed, neither do I think that any of the witnesses for the defence deliberately tried to mislead the Court. However, I think it is a fair comment to say, as Counsel for the defence more or less suggested during the course of the hearing, that Mr. Trent's thinking processes and his style of expression very often involved drawing very fine distinctions which could be misinterpreted as indicating that he was either prevaricating or, at best, was being evasive; at least, that was how I perceived his evidence. I believe that he is an honest man who, at all stages, was endeavouring to tell the truth but that, very often, his perception of reality differed from the norm. In this regard, the Plaintiff impressed me as someone who suffers from a type of perescution complex; believing that he is being victimised by persons in authority and this attitude colours his sense of truth.

3. These proceedings have their roots in a "999" telephone call which the Plaintiff undoubtedly made at 11.56 p.m. on the evening of the 2nd September 1989 arising; he alleges, from an attempted attack on him by some cider drinking youths at the entry tower to his home at 77 Tyrone Place, Dublin 8. Initially, it appeared that one of the principal issues which I was being asked to decide was whether or not that "999" telephone call had been responded to by the Garda Síochana. However, as the hearing progressed and, in particular, during his closing submissions to the Court, the Plaintiff indicated that his criticism of the Garda Síochana and of the Garda Complaints Board was not so much that that "999" call had not been responded to but that his complaints arising out of the response to it; (a response which, in any event, he considered to be inadequate) were mishandled. As Mr. Trent put it in the course of the hearing "no one tried to get to the truth of my allegations" . That as it may be, however, it seems to me that, before I can come to any conclusion about the rights or wrongs of Mr. Trent's criticism of the manner in which the Garda Siochana and the Garda Complaints Board dealt with the complaints made by him following that "999" call, I must have regard for the events which occurred on the evening on the 2nd September 1989 and early in the morning of the following day and I must decide what happened during those hours. In this connection, as I have already indicated, there is no doubt but that the Plaintiff did, indeed, make a "999" call at 11.56 p.m. on the evening of the 2nd September 1989 because the fact of that call was recorded by the Garda Siochana communications centre and, during the course of the hearing, I was furnished with what both parties accepted was a transcript of the conversation which took place during the course of the call between Mr. Trent and the person in the communications centre, who answered the call. However, while Mr. Trent maintained that the "999" call was precipitated by an attack on him by some cider drinking youths, which had taken place a short time earlier near the entrance to his home at 77 Tyrone Place, the defence disputed the fact that he had been anywhere near his home a short time prior to making the "999" call and suggested that, in any event, there had been no gathering of cider drinking youths in the vicinity of Tyrone Place in or about that time. In this regard, the Plaintiff gave evidence that, on the evening of the 2nd of September 1989, he had visited the Black Lion Public House at about 9.00 p.m. He said that he was on his own and that he stayed in the Public House for about two hours drinking lager and then left to go home. He said that, on his way home, he stopped at a chip-shop where he purchased and consumed some chips and that he would have arrived back at Tyrone Place at about 11.40 p.m. He said that, when he got there, he found a gang of rowdy youths breaking down the hoarding of a vacant flat. They appeared to him to be under the influence of drink. He said that an elderly lady resident called out to him that she was frightened and he responded that he would call the Gardaí. He was then threatened by the gang of youths, one of whom was carrying a lump of timber, but he escaped from them to his own flat where he remained, watching from the window, until they had dispersed. He said that he then returned to the Black Lion Public House where he made the "999" call which, as I have indicted, was timed at 11.56 p.m. He said that, at the time, he was very angry because, following a series of meetings which he had had with Inspector Ray McAndrew of Kilmainham Garda Station sometime previously, he had been assured that the block of flats at Tyrone Place would be patrolled regularly by the Garda Síochana but this had not happened. Under cross-examination, it was put to Mr. Trent that, from the time he entered the Black Lion Public House at about 9.00 p.m. on the evening of the 2nd September 1989 until he made the "999" telephone call at 11.56 p.m. he had not left the Public House; the implication being that he had concocted the story about the cider drinking youths causing trouble at Tyrone Place and attacking him and that, in fact, he had no good reason for making the "999" call. It was also suggested to him that, on the evening in question, there had been no trouble at Tyrone Place and, in particular, no trouble due to the activities of the cider drinking youths. Mr. Trent rejected both of those assertions and, insofar as the suggestion that he had not left the Black Lion Pub from the time that he had entered it at 9.00 p.m. until the time he made the "999" call was concerned, he was supported by the evidence of Mr. Liam Bissett, who was the barman in the Black Lion at the time and who said that, while he could not recall the time at which the Plaintiff had arrived at the premises, he did recall that he left the premises sometime before closing, which would have been at 11.30 p.m. and that he returned sometime later; Mr. Bissett was not able to say at what precise time that was but he was able to say that, whatever time it was, there were still a few people in the lounge of the Black Lion. He said that he spoke to Mr. Trent, who appeared to be annoyed and frustrated, but he could not recall what he said to him and he said that Mr. Trent then made a telephone call and, having done so, immediately left the public house. Against that, I heard evidence from a married couple; Joseph and Patricia Lee, who said that they had arrived at the Black Lion Public House on the evening in question at about 9.30 p.m. and that, when they arrived, Mr. Trent, who they knew by sight, was already there. They gave evidence that they sat beside the telephone; no more than five feet away from where Mr. Trent was sitting at the bar and that he would have been in their view for the remainder of the evening. They said that, sometime later that night, Mr. Lee had gone to the toilet and, while he was there, Mr. Trent went to the telephone. Mrs Lee said that, at that stage, he appeared to be agitated, that he dialled three digits and that she heard him say "I want to be put through to the Guards" . At that stage, Mr. Lee returned from the toilet and confirmed that he saw and heard Mr. Trent on the telephone and that he appeared to him to be agitated. Both Mr. and Mrs Lee gave evidence that they heard Mr. Trent demand that the Guards be sent to 77 Tyrone Place. He then hung up but, if he did, Mr. and Mrs Lee said that he immediately picked up the telephone again and dialled some digits and hung up; apparently, before the telephone was answered. They said that Mr. Trent then returned to the bar and that he was still there when they left the premises at about 12.10 a.m. Mr. Lee gave evidence that, he considered that what he had witnessed Mr. Trent doing was very unusual and peculiar; in particular, as Mr. Trent had asked the Guards to call to 77 Tyrone Place while he, himself, remained in the Public House. Accordingly, he decided to report the incident to the Garda Siochana and, on the following day, on his way home from work, he called into Kilmainham Garda Station and reported the incident to a Sergeant Morrisson, who requested that he and his wife would make statements about the occurrence, which they did some says later. Apart from the evidence of Mr. and Mrs Lee, I had evidence from Sergeant Brian Gilmartin who said that he was on duty on the evening in question in plain clothes driving patrol car Alpha Charlie 2 and accompanied by Guard Brian Murray. He said that, at about 11.56 p.m., he received a call to go to Tyrone Place to investigate a complaint with regard to the activities of cider drinking youths. He said that he went to Thomas Davis Street, which adjoins Tyrone Place, and, there, they stopped the car and got out and visited the first main block of flats at Tyrone Place where they found nothing amiss. At that stage, they received a call to investigate an alleged riot at a nearby block of flats in St. Michael's Estate and, accordingly, left Tyrone Place without having visited the block in which Mr. Trent was resident and, in particular, without having called to Mr. Trent's flat at number 77. However, Sergeant Gilmartin said that, having dealt with the problem at St. Michael's Estate, they returned to Tyrone Place at about 12.20/12.30 a.m. and there visited block C in which Mr. Trent resides and again, found nothing amiss. Guard Murray gave similar evidence.

4. Arising from the foregoing, it is clear that, if the evidence of Mr. and Mrs Lee is accurate, the "999" telephone call made by Mr. Trent was a hoax call. However, while, as I have already indicated, it is my opinion that Mr. Trent has many faults (he is garrulous, argumentative to an irritating degree and has a facility for splitting hairs second to none), I do not think that he told deliberate lies in the witness box and, of course, were it a fact that he had not left the Black Lion Public House and had not been beset by a gang of youths before he made the "999" telephone call, he would have been telling me deliberate lies. However, apart from the fact that I do not consider him to be an untruthful person, his evidence with regard to leaving the Public House and returning later on to make the "999" call was corroborated by the barman, Liam Bissett whose evidence I had no reason to disbelieve. This is not say that I though that Mr. and Mrs Lee were dishonest in the evidence which they gave. On the contrary, I am satisfied that they firmly believe that Mr. Trent did not leave the Black Lion Public House from the time that they entered it at 9.30 p.m. on the evening of the 2nd September 1989 until the time that they left at 12.10 a.m. on the following morning and that, in the meantime, he made the "999" call which they overheard. Otherwise, it is inconceivable that Mr. Lee would have made the report to the Garda Siochana at Kilmainham Garda Station which he made on the following day because, while there was evidence of bad relations between Mrs Lee and Mr. Trent in recent years (she suggesting that Mr. Trent has been harassing her; a suggestion which he vehemently refutes), in September 1989, Mr. Trent and Mr. and Mrs Lee did not even know one another, save by appearance, and, therefore, Mr. Lee would have had absolutely no reason for making a false complaint against Mr. Trent. Accordingly, I do not think that Mr. and Mrs Lee made up the story which they told to the Garda Siochana but I think that they are mistaken in their belief that Mr. Trent did not leave the Black Lion Public House from the time that they entered it until the time that he made the "999" call. While it may well be that Mr. Trent was in the view of Mr. and Mrs Lee at all times while the three of them were on the premises, there was absolutely no reason why Mr. and Mrs Lee should be watching Mr. Trent all the time and, therefore, I think that he could have been missing for some of the time without their realising it, or perhaps, because they assumed that he was visiting the toilet. Accordingly, I do not consider that the "999" call made by Mr. Trent was a hoax call and, while I accept the evidence of Sergeant Gilmartin that, when he attended Tyrone Place in response to that call, he found nothing amiss, I think that the probabilities are that, had he penetrated further into the complex of flats on his first visit; in other words had he gone to block C where Mr. Trent lives, he might well have encountered the youths about whom Mr. Trent was complaining and that, by the time that Sergeant Gilmartin had dealt with the problem which arose at St. Michael's Estate, those youths had dispersed.

5. In the light of the evidence of Sergeant Gilmartin and Guard Murray, which I accept without reservation, there can be no doubt but that, whatever reservations Mr. Trent may have had at the time, the Garda Siochana did, in fact, respond to his "999" call. Indeed, Mr. Trent conceded as much in evidence when he said that, having returned home after making the "999" call, he was standing at the window of his flat looking out when he saw an unmarked car stop twice and the occupants appeared to speak to people nearby. However, they did not come into Tyrone Place. Mr. Trent agreed in evidence that, at the time, he had thought that that car was a Garda car and that it had come in response to his call. However, he said that he was angry that no-one had called to his flat so that, there and then, he went to Kilmainham Garda Station to ask why his "999" call had not been responded to. That attitude is, I think, an example of Mr. Trent's facility for splitting hairs or, as I had alternatively referred to it, his perception of reality being somewhat different than what one would normally expect it to be. He acknowledges that, after he made his "999", a car, which he believed to be a Garda car, came to Tyrone Place; in his view in answer to his call and, yet, he protests to the Garda Síochana that they did not respond to the "999" call because no-one actually called to his door. In those circumstances, I was not at all surprised that, in the course of the hearing, Mr. Trent distanced himself from the case which had been made on his behalf in the pleadings and, indeed, from the case which he made in his opening address to the Court i.e. that the Gardaí had not responded to his "999" call. In this connection, by the way, Mr. Trent said in evidence that, when he called to Kilmainham Garda Station to complain about the failure to respond to his "999" call, the Station Officer, Sergeant Seamus McCudden told him that the Gardaí were too busy to respond to the call. While Sergeant McCudden conceded in evidence that he had, indeed, had told Mr. Trent that the Gardaí were busy at the time, he did not say that in the context of admitting that they had failed to respond to Mr. Trent's "999" call. In this regard, Sergeant McCudden explained, as he said that he had explained to Mr. Trent on the morning in question, that "999" calls go directly to the control centre who, in turn, dispatch cars without reference to individual Garda Stations. Accordingly, it was not true that he, Sergeant McCudden had conceded to Mr. Trent that the Gardaí had not responded to his "999" call. I accept Sergeant McCudden's evidence in that regard; particularly, because his description of Mr. Trent's appearance on that occasion was consistent with Mr. Trent being affected by drink which did not at all surprise me having regard to Mr. Trent's concession that he had spent a number of hours drinking earlier that evening and I suspect that Mr. Trent's memory may have been affected on that account, although he denies being drunk at the time. Although it was not put to Sergeant McCudden, Mr. Trent said in evidence that, on the same occasion, he had related to Sergeant McCudden various problems which he was experiencing in Tyrone Place and that he complained to him that nothing was being done about those problems. In response, Mr. Trent said that Sergeant McCudden had suggested to him that he should take up those matters with Inspector McAndrew, as he then was. Accordingly, on the following Monday, which was the 4th of September, Mr. Trent attended at Kilmainham Garda Station for the purpose of seeing Inspector McAndrew but he was not on duty at the time. However, Mr. Trent left a letter for his attention in which he recounted the events which he said had occurred on the evening of the 2nd of September and complained to Inspector McAndrew that the "999" call which he had made as a result of those events had not been responded to. That letter was followed by a visit to Mr. Trent's flat at 77 Tyrone Place, on the 18th September, 1989 by Inspector McAndrew, as he then was, who was accompanied by Sergeant Kevin Ward. There they met Mr. Trent and, at this stage, I think that I might digress a little. During the trial of this action I heard evidence from a variety of witnesses and, in particular, from Mr. Trent himself, who spent a considerable amount of time in the witness box. Furthermore, I was referred to a voluminous amount of correspondence and documentation, including documents discovered on behalf of the Commissioner of the Garda Siochana and on behalf of the Garda Complaints Board. I do not consider it necessary for the purpose of this judgment that I review in detail all the evidence which I heard or that I comment on the implications of all the correspondence and other documentation to which I was referred. Apart from the fact that such an examination would be very lengthy, I do not think that it would serve any useful purpose. In my view, it is sufficient that I should endeavour to identify the issues raised by Mr. Trent in these proceedings and resolve them as I think fit.

6. I will now return to the meeting of the 18th September, 1989 between Mr. Trent on the one hand and Inspector McAndrew and Sergeant Ward on the other. Superintendent McAndrew (since that time, he has been promoted to the rank of Superintendent), gave evidence that, as far as he was concerned, the purpose of that meeting was to ascertain from Mr. Trent what he wanted to do with regard to the complaint which he had made in the letter which he wrote to him on the 4th September, 1989 and to advise him with regard to the proper procedures for bringing a complaint before the Garda Complaints Board; in particular, to tell him that there was a form of complaint which he could complete at Kilmainham Garda Station. Mr. Trent's interpretation of that meeting is that it was an effort on the part of Superintendent McAndrew to intimidate him to the extent that he would withdraw his complaint with regard to the manner in which his "999" call had been dealt with by the Gardai. In support of that contention, Mr. Trent referred to the fact that, in the course of that interview, Superintendent McAndrew had (a) conceded that the Gardai had not responded to Mr. Trent's "999" call because they were too busy at the time and (b) intimated that there was evidence available to the Gardai which suggested; firstly, that, from the time that Mr. Trent entered the Black Lion Public House on the evening of the 2nd September, 1989 to the time that he made the "999" call, he had not left the premises and, secondly, that there was no untoward behaviour in Tyrone Place on the evening of the 2nd September, 1989; the implication being that Mr. Trent's "999" call was a hoax. Yet, Mr. Trent said that Superintendent McAndrew refused to identify the witnesses whom he said would establish those matters and that he also refused to accept Mr. Trent's offer to furnish him with the names of witnesses whom he (Mr. Trent) maintained would corroborate his account of events on the evening of 2nd September, 1989. All of this Mr. Trent interpreted as a not too subtle effort on the part of Superintendent McAndrew to persuade him to abandon his complaint with regard to the Gardai response to his "999" call coupled with an implied threat that, if he did not abandon that complaint, he would be charged with making a hoax call. In my view, Mr. Trent has completely misinterpreted the purpose of Superintendent McAndrew's visit to him on the 18th September, 1989 and the implications of what was said at that meeting. In the first place, I think that Mr. Trent is gravely mistaken in his belief that Superintendent McAndrew conceded to him that his "999" call had not been responded to by the Gardaí because they were too busy, for the simple reason that that would not be the truth, as Superintendent McAndrew knew at the time, because, it is clear from other evidence that I heard in this case that Superintendent McAndrew had heard a tape recording of Mr. Trent's "999" call on the 4th of September, 1989 and, at the same time ascertained from the records at the control centre that the call had been responded to. Moreover, while I have no doubt but that, at that meeting of the 18th of September, 1989, Superintendent McAndrew had indicated to Mr. Trent that there was evidence available to the Gardaí which conflicted with his (Mr. Trent's) account of the events which had occurred on the evening of the 2nd of September, 1989, he did so; not for the purpose of intimidating or threatening Mr. Trent but merely because Mr. Trent had asked him about inquiries which he (Mr. Trent) had heard being made of the caretaker at Tyrone Place with regard to the events on that evening. Moreover, I think that it is clear that Superintendent McAndrew's disinterest in the identity of witnesses proffered by Mr. Trent and his reluctance to identify for Mr. Trent witnesses who were available to the Gardaí is a clear indication that, at that stage, Superintendent McAndrew was not contemplating proceedings against Mr. Trent for making a hoax call. If he had been, then I have little doubt but that he would have been happy to receive the names of any witnesses, who might have had any relevant evidence to offer. In my view, Mr. Trent's evidence with regard to Superintendent McAndrew's disinterest in what he (Mr. Trent) had to say about the events of the 2nd of September, 1989 during their meeting on the 18th of September, 1989 confirms Superintendent McAndrew's evidence that the purpose of his visit to Mr. Trent on that day was not in furtherance of an investigation by him into an alleged hoax "999" call by Mr. Trent but to ascertain what Mr. Trent's intentions were with regard to the complaint which he had made that his "999" call had not been responded to. Moreover, it is consistent with Superintendent McAndrew's evidence that, if Mr. Trent intended making a complaint to the Garda Complaints Board, it was a matter for the Board and not for him to inquire into the events of the 2nd of September, 1989 and that, were he to conduct any further investigations in that regard, he would be pre-empting the Board in that respect. Accordingly, I reject Mr. Trent's assertion that, at that meeting of the 18th of September, 1989, he was intimidated or in any way threatened by Superintendent McAndrew. Following that meeting of the 18th of September, 1989, Mr. Trent wrote to Superintendent McAndrew on the 22nd of September, 1989 seeking some of the information which he had failed to obtain from him at that meeting, in response to which, by letter dated the 27th of September, 1989, Superintendent McAndrew detailed the procedures for making a complaint to the Garda Complaints Board and invited Mr. Trent to contact him with regard to completing necessary documentation. In response to that invitation, Mr. Trent attended Kilmainham Garda Station on the 3rd of October, 1989 and, with the assistance of Superintendent McAndrew who completed the form on Mr. Trent's dictation, Mr. Trent signed a form of notification of complaint to the Garda Complaints Board, being Form G.S.C.1. which was subsequently given the reference number 890426 by the Garda Complaints Board. With regard to the completion of that form, Superintendent McAndrew gave evidence that, having completed it on Mr. Trent's dictation and having read it over to Mr. Trent, he (Mr. Trent) requested that the word "responded" in it be altered to the word "appeared" and he (Superintendent McAndrew) made the necessary alteration whereupon Mr. Trent signed the form as the person making the complaint and Superintendent McAndrew signed it as the member of the Garda Síochana receiving the complaint. Superintendent McAndrew then gave evidence that he forwarded the form to the Garda Complaints Board on the 9th of October, 1989 but, before doing so and without the knowledge or approval of Mr. Trent, he inserted in the form the names of Detective Garda Brian Gilmartin and Garda Brian Murray as being the members of the Garda Síochana about whom complaint was been made. He said that he did this because it was his responsibility to furnish the Garda Complaints Board with as much information as possible about the complaint and, later on in the case, I heard evidence from Mr. Sean Hurley, Chief Executive of the Garda Síochana Complaints Board that, from time to time, Gardaí did add to G.S.C.1. Forms information which had been omitted for the purpose of assisting the Board and of speeding up the investigation of a complaint. That as it may be, Mr. Trent, who did not learn of these additions to the G.S.C.1. Form until March 1991, was furious at the idea that, without his knowledge or approval, additions had been made to a form which he had signed after he had signed it and he believed that he was gravely prejudiced on that account. While I have considerable sympathy for Mr. Trent's ire, I am not persuaded that any prejudice was occasioned to him by the additions which Superintendent McAndrew made to that G.S.C.1. form. Certainly it was wrong for Superintendent McAndrew to have made those additions without Mr. Trent's knowledge or approval and without advising the Garda Complaints Board that additions had been made to the form after Mr. Trent had signed it. It is equally wrong for the Garda Complaints Board to tolerate additions being made to complaint forms after they have been executed by a complainant; no matter how helpful those additions might be to the deliberations of the board and, if this practice is still being followed, I think that it should be ceased immediately. However, despite the wrongs of what Superintendent McAndrew did, I cannot see any grounds upon which the addition of the names of Detective Garda Gilmartin and Garda Murray to the G.S.C.1. form which he forwarded to the Garda Complaints Board could have prejudiced Mr. Trent in any way whatsoever. The inclusion of those names merely drew to the attention of the board the identity of the Gardai who would be held to have been responsible were Mr. Trent's complaint upheld and in no way altered the substance of the complaint. Accordingly, I reject Mr. Trent's submission that any material harm was occasioned to him by the additions which Superintendent McAndrew made to that G.S.C.1. form. I also reject Mr. Trent's charge that Superintendent McAndrew misrepresented to him the provisions of the Garda Complaints Act, when advising him that the correct procedure for dealing with a complaint to the Garda Complaints Board was for the complainant to complete a G.S.C.1. form. While it is true that Section 4 of the Garda Complaints Act, 1986 does permit a complainant to make an oral complaint to the board, it does not, in my view, follow that Superintendent McAndrew misled Mr. Trent in any way when he advised him that he (Superintendent McAndrew) was satisfied that the correct procedure for making a complaint to the board was to complete and sign an appropriate form in that behalf.

7. The Garda Complaints Board acknowledged receipt of the G.S.C.1. form which Mr. Trent had signed on the 3rd October, 1989 on the 9th October, 1989 and, as I have already indicated, gave it the reference number 890426. Apparently, Mr. Trent heard nothing further with regard to this complaint until he received a letter from the Garda Complaints Board dated the 9th March, 1990. I will return to that letter later on in this Judgment. In the meantime, on the 21st February, 1990, Mr. Trent made a further complaint to the Garda Complaints Board on another G.S.C.1. form which was received by the Board on the 26th February, 1990 and assigned the number 890734. The board acknowledged receipt of that further complaint by letter to Mr. Trent dated the 26th February, 1990. On the face of it, that complaint appears to charge Superintendent McAndrew with being more interested in covering up mistakes of the Garda Siochana than rectifying them. However, in the course of his evidence, Mr. Trent said that the import of that further complaint was that he had been intimidated by Superintendent McAndrew and that he had clarified that point in a ten page submission which he had forwarded to the Garda Complaints Board on the 22nd June, 1990. That submission comprised a covering letter in which (inter alia) Mr. Trent criticised the conduct of Superintendent McAndrew and Detective Sergeant Ward in the course of their meeting with Mr. Trent at Mr. Trent's home on the 18th September, 1989 and was accompanied by copy letters from Mr. Trent to Superintendent McAndrew dated the 24th May, 1989, the 4th September, 1989 and the 22nd September, 1989, a copy of a letter dated the 19th September, 1988, from Mr. Trent to Superintendent Hurley of Kevin Street Garda Station, a copy of a letter dated the 2nd September, 1988 from Superintendent Hurley to Deputy J Kemmy T.D. and several statements from witnesses with regard to events which are alleged to have occurred on the evening of the 2nd September, 1989. Prior to that and by the aforementioned letter dated the 9th March, 1990 addressed to Mr. Trent by Mr. Tony Carberry, Office Manager of the Garda Complaints Board, Mr. Trent was advised that his two complaints bearing reference numbers 890426 and 890734 would not be processed by the board until an outstanding backlog of complaints had been dealt with and he was also advised that a previous complaint made on his behalf by Deputy Jim Kemmy T.D., which is not at all relevant to these proceeding and which bore the reference number 880843, was not admissible. The next contact which the Plaintiff had with the Garda Complaints Board was a letter dated the 28th January, 1991 with reference to Mr. Trent's first complaint which had been given the reference number 890426. In that letter, Mr. Sean D Hurley, Chief Executive of the Board, apologised for the delay in dealing with that complaint which he maintained was "due to circumstances beyond my control" . Mr. Trent was then advised that that complaint was not admissible, in that, it had not been shown to satisfy all the required conditions and, in particular, that the alleged conduct would be an offence or a breach of discipline under the Garda Siochana Complaints Act, 1986. In the light of that decision, Mr. Trent was advised that no further action would be taken with regard to that complaint. Not surprisingly, Mr. Trent protested that decision in a letter to the Board dated the 31st January, 1991 in which (inter alia) he requested more specific reasons for the decision, challenged the assertion that the conduct complained of in his complaint was not covered by the Garda Siochana (Complaints) Act, 1986 and, generally speaking, suggested that the board had not taken into account all relevant matters when arriving at their decision because, as he maintained, the G.S.C.1. form, which he had completed did not permit the inclusion of all relevant information. In response to that letter, Mr. Hurley wrote to the Plaintiff on the 7th February, 1991 advising him that his complaint would be placed before the board for their decision on its admissibility. On the 13th February, 1991, a Mr. Michael Flahive of the Garda Complaints Board wrote to Mr. Trent advising him (inter alia) that his two complaints would be put before the board for a final decision on their admissibility and that the investigation of his complaints could not be carried out until they were admitted by the board. This was the first occasion on which the Plaintiff learned that the Chief Executive of the board had rejected his second complaint (reference number 890734) as being inadmissible. In this regard, when he came to give evidence, Mr. Hurly conceded that he ought to have advised Mr. Trent of his decision to reject his second complaint on the grounds of admissibility before referring that question to the board and he claimed that his failure to do so was on oversight on his part. For his part, Mr. Trent refused to accept that explanation; maintaining that Mr. Hurley had deliberately avoided advising him that he had rejected his second complaint on the grounds of admissibility. I cannot accept that. I cannot conceive of any reason; good or bad, why Mr. Hurley would not have advised Mr. Trent that he had decided to reject his second complaint on the grounds of admissibility other than that he overlooked to do so. I accept that Mr. Trent was entitled to be advised of that decision and that he is entitled to be aggrieved at Mr. Hurley's failure to advise him of it but, apart from the fact that I accept Mr. Hurley's evidence that the omisison was due to inadvertence on his part, it seems to me that, in any event, it made no practical difference because, had Mr. Hurley advised Mr. Trent that he was rejecting his second complaint on the grounds of admissibility, I have no doubt but that Mr. Trent would have protested that rejection and would have insisted that the question be submitted to the board for its decision which, in fact, is what happened. Accordingly, I do not think that Mr. Trent was in any way prejudiced by Mr. Hurley's failure to advise him that he had rejected his second complaint on the grounds of admissibility. On the 19th March, 1991, Mr. Trent was advised that the Garda Complaints Board had reviewed his complaints and had decided to admit for investigation his complaint of the 3rd October, 1989 (reference number 890426). However, with regard to the complaint which he had made on the 21st February, 1990 (reference number 890734) Mr. Trent was advised that the board had decided that that complaint was not admissible for the reasons set out in that letter. In response to that letter, Mr. Trent wrote to the board on the 22nd March, 1991; a letter which he copied to Jim Mitchell T.D., protesting the grounds upon which the board had decided to investigate his first complaint (reference number 890426) for the reason that those grounds presumed that there had been some response to his "999" telephone call on the 2nd September, 1989 which, at that time, Mr. Trent did not accept although, as I have already indicated, he now accepts that there was a response to that call. In that letter of the 22nd March, 1991, Mr. Trent also protested the board's decision to reject his second complaint (reference number 890734) on the grounds of admissibility for the reason that he maintained that that decision was based on a number of erroneous assumptions and not on the facts of the case. In that letter of the 22nd March, 1991 Mr. Trent posed a number of questions for the board relative to their decision to reject his second complaint on the grounds of admissibility. In response to that letter, the Board, by letter dated the 25th March, 1991, assured Mr. Trent that his complaint with regard to the "999" call (No. 890426) would be fully and completely investigated and that his anxieties in that regard were groundless. In that letter, Mr. Trent was further advised of the grounds upon which his second complaint (No. 890734) had been rejected by the Board as being inadmissible. In this regard, it appeared to me from the said letter of the 25th March, 1991 that, when deciding that Mr. Trent's second complaint was inadmissible, the Board had considered that complaint on its face value without taking into account the Plaintiff's submission of the 22nd June, 1990 and the documentation which had accompanied that submission. However, when he came to give evidence, Mr. Sean Hurley, Chief Executive of the Board, was specifically questioned on that point and he was adamant that Mr. Trent's submission of the 22nd June, 1990 had been taken into account when the admissibility of his second complaint (No. 890734) was being considered. I can see no reason for doubting Mr. Hurley's evidence in that regard. By letter dated the 24th May, 1991, the Garda Complaints Board advised Mr. Trent that a Superintendent D. Sheehan of Area Headquarters, Harcourt Street, had been appointed by the Commissioner of the Garda Siochana as Investigating Officer to investigate the Plaintiff's first complaint (No. 890426).

8. During the currency of Superintendent Sheenan's investigation and, indeed, thereafter, it was clear from evidence which I heard and from correspondence to which I was referred that Mr. Trent had deluged the Garda Complaints Board with letters of complaint with regard to the manner in which his two complaints (Nos. 890426 and 890734) had been dealt with by the Board and, at the same time, had worn a path into the Board's offices because of the number of visits which he had made to reiterate those complaints in person. As I have already indicated, I do not consider it necessary for the purpose of this judgment to review all that correspondence in detail. However, I think that it is relevant to note that, among the myriad of complaints which he made, were allegations that the Garda Complaints Board considered and adjudicated on a complaint which purported to emanate from Mr. Trent but which, in fact, had not been made by him because the form of complaint which bore his signature had been altered before it was sent to the Board (in this regard Superintendent McAndrew was accused of corruptly handling Mr. Trent's letter to him of the 4th September, 1989, of inventing a complaint on behalf of Mr. Trent which was submitted to the Garda Complaints Board, of forging the form of complaint signed by the Plaintiff and of a Garda cover-up). Moreover, the Board was accused of negligence, bias towards the Gardai and corruption. In my view, as I have already indicated, while Superintendent McAndrew can be criticised for adding the names of two members of the Garda Siochana to the first form of complaint signed by Mr. Trent and the Chief Executive of the Garda Complaints Board, Mr. Hurley, can be criticised for failing to advise Mr. Trent that his second complaint (No. 890734) had been rejected on the grounds that it was inadmissible before he referred that question to the Board, there was, in my view, no justification for the vitriolic abuse which Mr. Trent hurled against the Board, both in correspondence and, apparently, in person and I sympathise with the sentiments expressed by Mr. Hurley in evidence when he said that he resented the attitude adopted by Mr. Trent; a resentment which, apparently, was shared by Mr. Hurley's staff, who, if I am to believe Mr. Hurley and, in this regard, I have no hesitation in accepting his evidence, protested strongly at the allegations of corruption which Mr. Trent had levied against them and, indeed, in some instances, requested that Mr. Hurley should excuse them from having any further dealings with Mr. Trent. To use a modern idiom, it seems to me that, however aggrieved Mr. Trent may have been with regard to the manner in which his complaints were dealt with by the Garda Complaints Board, it was way "over the top" to accuse the Board, or any of its staff, of corruption. I would accept that Mr. Trent was entitled to take issue with replies which he received to queries which he raised with the Board or, indeed, to complain that the Board were not replying to some of the queries which he raised but, however dissatisfied he may have been with the Board's response to the queries which he raised and, whether or not any dissatisfaction on his part was justified, there was, in my view, no excuse for the malevolent accusations which he made against the Board and its staff. Moreover, I would also sympathise with Mr. Hurley's criticism of the volume of correspondence which Mr. Trent initiated with the Board; much of which was repetitious.

9. Now, as I have already indicated, on the 24th May, 1991, Mr. Trent was advised that a Superintendent Sheehan had been appointed by the Commissioner of the Gardai as Investigating Officer to investigate his first complaint (No. 890426). Superintendent Dan Sheehan gave evidence that, pursuant to that appointment, he met with the Plaintiff at Kilmainham Garda Station on the 24th June, 1991. Apart from himself, Superintendent Sheehan said that present at the meeting were Garda Grainne Pollard, Mr. Trent, himself, and a friend of Mr. Trent's named Michael Moriarty. Superintendent Sheehan gave evidence that, at that meeting, he referred to a letter dated the 30th April, 1991 which Mr. Trent had written to the Assistant Commissioner of the Gardai in which he outlined twelve complaints which Mr. Trent was then making against the Garda Siochana but only three of which related to the events which he (Superintendent Sheehan) was investigating. Superintendent Sheehan said that, on that occasion, in response to specific questions from him, Mr. Trent had said that the complaints Nos. 5, 6, 7 and 8 in that letter were included by way of background to the complaint which Superintendent Sheehan was investigating but Mr. Trent declined to answer any questions posed by Superintendent Sheehan with regard to complaints 9 and 11 in that letter which respectively concerned, on the one hand, alleged activities at Tyrone Place which Mr. Trent maintained threatened his personal safety and, on the other, the letter which Mr. Trent had written to Inspector McAndrew, as he then was, on the 4th September, 1989. Superintendent Sheehan agreed in evidence that, on that occasion, he has raised no questions with regard to items 10 and 12 of Mr. Trent's letter to the Assistant Commissioner of the 30th April, 1991 which concerned the "999" call which Mr. Trent had made on the 2nd September, 1989 and Mr. Trent's meeting with Inspector McAndrew, as he then was, and Detective Sergeant Ward on the 18th September, 1989. However, in that regard, Superintendent Sheehan gave evidence that he received a signed statement from Mr. Trent dealing with those matters dated the 24th June, 1991 and witnessed by himself and by Garda Pollard and Mr. Moriarty. In addition, Superintendent Sheehan gave evidence that Mr. Trent also handed him a number of other documents, which he did not identify but which he said were initialed by all present. He said that he had no recollection of handing any of those documents back to Mr. Trent. In cross-examination, Superintendent said that he did not ask Mr. Trent for the names of his alleged witnesses to the events of the 2nd September, 1989 and that he could not say why he had not asked for the names of those witnesses. Moreover, although he did not say that it had not happened, he said that he had no recollection of being given witness statements by Mr. Trent, of reading the names of those witnesses out loud and of giving the statements back to Mr. Trent. In this connection, Mr. Trent had already given evidence that, on that occasion, he had given to Superintendent Sheehan copies of statements from his witnesses, that he (Superintendent Sheehan) read the names of the witnesses out loud but did not read the body of the statements and then handed them back to Mr. Trent without further comment. Given that Mr. Michael Moriarty confirmed Mr. Trent's account of events in that regard, I have little doubt but that that is what happened and, although Superintendent Sheehan cannot recall the incident, I would assume he gave those statements back to Mr. Trent because he had already seen Mr. Trent's submission of the 22nd June, 1990, which also included copies of those statements. However, I am not convinced that that incident is of any great significance in the context of this case.

10. Under further cross-examination, Superintendent Sheehan gave evidence of the details of his investigation into Mr Trent's first complaint (No. 890426), in the course of which he referred to a considerable amount of correspondence which had been generated by that investigation. In this regard, he vehemently rejected an assertion by Mr Trent that he (Superintendent Sheehan) had not tried to get to the truth of Mr Trent's allegations with regard to that complaint. On the contrary, he maintained that he had investigated that complaint in all its aspects and its implications and, on the 17th of July 1991 he reported to the Chief Executive of the Garda Siochana Complaints Board with his findings. For his part, the Chief Executive of the Board, Mr Sean Hurley, later gave evidence that, on receipt of Superintendent Sheehan's report, he prepared a submission thereon for the Board, which included his recommendations with regard to Mr Trent's complaints, and that the matter was then considered by the Board who, although satisfied that the complaint had been properly investigated, decided to reject it. In this connection, it is, perhaps, relevant to note that, while he conceded under cross-examination that he believed that Mr Trent had fully co-operated with the investigation of his complaint, Mr Hurley, nevertheless, noted that he (Mr Trent) had refused permission for the Board to approach and interview witnesses identified by Mr Trent as being relevant to his complaint. Whatever may have been Mr Hurley's views with regard to that refusal, it did not strike me as the proper attitude of a person, who is co-operating with the investigation of his complaint. However, whether or not Mr Trent was as co-operative as he might have been, I am satisfied by the evidence of Superintendent Sheehan and by the correspondence to which he referred that, despite Mr Trent's reservations, his complaint was properly investigated and, whether or not I agree with their findings, I am satisfied that the Board were entitled to come to the conclusion which they reached. In this connection, Mr Trent was critical of the fact that, when submitting Superintendent Sheehan's report to the Board, Mr Hurley included comments and recommendations with regard to the action that might be taken by the Board in relation to Mr Trent's complaint on the grounds that, as he was Chief Executive of the Board, those recommendations offended the principle that no one can be a Judge in his own cause and, accordingly, violated Mr Trent's constitutional rights and his right to fair procedures. Essentially, therefore, Mr Trent was challenging the constitutionality of Section 6(4) of the Garda Siochana (Complaints) Act, 1986 which specifically requires that, when submitting a report of an Investigating Officer to the Board, the Chief Executive shall include such comments and recommendations. Given that the Board is not required to Act on the recommendations of the Chief Executive, I do not consider that, when making those recommendations, the Chief Executive either purports to or is acting as a Judge in his own cause because the fact of the matter is that it is the Board and not the Chief Executive who adjudicates on the matter. Accordingly, I am not persuaded that the provisions of Section 6(4) of the Garda Siochana (Complaints) Act, 1986 did violate any of Mr Trent's constitutional rights. Mr Trent also submitted that, when considering his complaints, the Garda Complaints Board did not observe fair procedures and offended a principle of natural justice by their failure to invite him to make representations to the Board with regard to his complaint before they adjudicated on it. In my view, that submission would be well-founded in the event that the decision of the Board would have had a deleterious effect on Mr Trent himself; in other words, that his well-being or his reputation would be harmed by the decision. The fact of the matter, however, is that the decision of the Board with regard to Mr Trent's complaint could not effect him personally but could only effect those against whom the complaint was made. Accordingly, as the provisions of the Garda Siochana (Complaints) Act, 1986 do not allow for a complainant to make representations to the Board with regard to his/her complaint, I do not think that a complainant has a right to make such representations and neither do I think that the failure of the Board to invite a complainant to make representations offends any principle of natural justice or transgresses fair procedures. In any event, I agree with the submission of Counsel for the defence that, if Mr Trent had a legitimate complaint with regard to the procedures adopted by the Garda Complaints Board, his remedy was to seek Judicial Review which, apparently, he declined to do.

11. Mr Trent was also critical of the failure of the Board to furnish him with their reasons for rejecting his complaint. However, I do not think that that criticism is well-founded because the provisions of the Garda Siochana (Complaints) Act, 1986 and, in particular, Section 7 thereof does not require that the Board furnish reasons for their decisions. Indeed, by Section 7(3) thereof it is specifically provided that, if the Board is of the opinion that a complaint does not disclose an offence or a breach of discipline on the part of the member of the Garda Siochana concerned, it shall notify the Commissioner of the Garda Siochana, the Complainant and the member concerned of its opinion and shall take no further action in the matter which I would interpret is indicating that it is not required to furnish reasons for its opinion.

12. Apart from the foregoing, Mr Trent accused Inspector T.J. Brady, who had been requested by his superiors to try and identify what Mr Trent's concerns were with regard to the investigation of his complaints, of invasion of his right to privacy and of intimidation. In this regard, Mr Brady, who is a retired Superintendent but, that at the material time, was an Inspector in the Garda Siochana, gave evidence that he had been requested by two superior Officers; Chief Superintendent Doocey and Superintendent Walsh, to contact Mr Trent with a view to establishing what his problems were with regard to the investigation of his several complaints and, generally, to ascertain what type of a person Mr Trent was. Mr Brady said that his brief was to report back to Superintendents Doocey and Walsh on the results of his enquiries but he was adamant that he had not been requested to and did not, in fact, concern himself with the investigation of the complaints by Mr Trent which were then pending before the Garda Complaints Board. Mr Brady gave evidence that he had experienced great difficulty in arranging for a meeting with Mr Trent and, to be quite frank, the impression that I got from Mr Brady's evidence in that regard it that Mr Trent went out of his way to avoid meeting Mr Brady and advanced spurious excuses for his failure to attend various meetings which had been arranged. However, Mr Brady solved that problem by calling to Mr Trent's home on the 17th of April 1992 without prior warning. I do not think it necessary to review in detail all the evidence which I heard with regard to that meeting. It is sufficient to note that Mr Brady gave evidence, which I accept, that he told Mr Trent that he was not investigating the complaints which Mr Trent had made to the Garda Complaints Board but was more concerned with trying to assure him that those complaints were being investigated by the Garda Siochana and with trying to ascertain what complaints Mr Trent had with regard to the manner in which his complaints were being investigated. It was clear to me from Mr Brady's demeanour in the witness box that he had been totally frustrated by Mr Trent's response to his approach. In this regard, Mr Brady said "Mr Trent does not accept anything you say to him and he constantly moves the goal posts" ; the implication being, as I interpreted that remark, that Mr Brady could get no satisfactory explanation from Mr Trent with regard to his criticism of the Garda investigation into his complaints. In the course of his evidence, Mr Brady said that he had made enquires from a variety of sources with regard to Mr Trent's background and circumstances and this provoked a complaint from a Mr Trent that Mr Brady had been snooping into his private life and therefore violated his Constitutional Right to privacy. In my view, Mr Brady was quite entitled to make the enquiries which he did into Mr Trent's background and circumstances and, in so doing, he did not violate any of Mr Trent's legal rights; much less his Constitutional Rights. Mr Brady also gave evidence that he had conveyed to Mr Trent the fact that Sergeant Ward, who Mr Trent had met with Inspector McAndrew on the 18th of September 1989, was aggrieved by certain comments which he (Mr Trent) was alleged to have made about Sergeant Ward; in particular, that Sergeant Ward had interfered with witnesses and that Sergeant Ward was obtaining legal advice with regard to those comments. This Mr Trent interpreted as an effort on the part of Mr Brady to intimidate him. In my view, it was no such thing.

13. Mr. Brady also said that, in his view, Mr. Trent's attitude indicated an underlying antipathy to the Garda Siochana; an assertion which Mr. Trent rejected but, nevertheless, stated in evidence that he did not trust the Gardai which, in my view, is another example of his ambivalence. Indeed, the whole tenor of Mr. Brady's evidence and of Mr. Trent's response thereto added substance to the view which I have already expressed that Mr. Trent believes that he has been victimised by the Garda Siochana and by the Garda Complaints Board; a belief which, in my view, is not justified by the evidence which I heard. On the contrary, I am satisfied that both the members of the Garda Siochana and the members of the Garda Complaints Board, who were concerned with the investigation of Mr. Trent's several complaints, devoted a disproportionate amount of their time and resources to that investigation and did so without bias or partiality and, in particular, with the intent that the truth of Mr. Trent's allegations would be established. While, as I have already indicated, I accept that irregularities occurred in the course of the investigation, I am not persuaded that those irregularities were intentional in the sense that they were designed to deprive the Plaintiff of a proper investigation of his complaints or to prejudice that investigation in any way and, in fact, I do not think that the Plaintiff was at all prejudiced by those irregularities. In my view, William Trent is a victim of his own personality; a personality which is characterised by an obsession that the only correct way for doing anything is his way and that reality is as he perceives it to be rather than what others might reasonably discern. I think that these characteristics, coupled with his acknowledged distrust of the Garda Siochana, have wrongly persuaded him that any dissent from his point of view with regard to the propriety of the investigations into the complaints which are the subject matter of these proceedings was calculated to conceal the truth. Accordingly, it seems to me that he has interpreted every aspect of the investigation into his complaints which did not accord with his view as to how that investigation ought to have been conducted as a deliberate attempt to cover up the truth of his allegations, or to wrongfully dissuade him from proceeding with his complaints; an interpretation which, in my judgment, was not borne out by the evidence which I heard.

14. In his closing submissions, Mr. Trent referred to a decision of the High Court given in a case of Geraldine Kennedy and Others -v- Ireland and The Attorney General (1987 I.R. at page 587) and to a decision of the Supreme Court given in a case of Paul Anthony Kane -v- The Governor of Mountjoy Prison (1988 I.R. at page 757) which he maintained were authorities for the proposition that the enquiries which had been conducted by Inspector G. J. Brady into his background and circumstances amounted to a violation of his constitutional right to privacy. While there is no doubt but that, by virtue of the Judgment of Hamilton P. given in the case of Kennedy and Others -v- Ireland and The Attorney General , the right to privacy, while not specifically guaranteed by the Constitution, is one of the personal rights of the citizen which is contemplated by it, it is equally clear that it is not an unqualified right but is subject to the constitutional rights of others, and, in particular, to the requirements of public order, public morality and the common good. Accordingly, while, by virtue of his constitutional right to privacy, a citizen is protected from unjustifiable and unwarranted invasion of his personal life, it does not, in my view, follow that a legitimate enquiry into a citizen's background and circumstances constitutes a violation of his constitutional right to privacy. In this case, in the light of Mr. Trent's expressed dissatisfaction with the manner in which his complaints were being investigated, senior members of the Garda Siochana requested Inspector Brady (inter alia) to ascertain what type of person Mr. Trent was and, in my view, if Inspector Brady was to give effect to that request, it was essential that he made enquiries into Mr. Trent's background and circumstances. Moreover, I think it perfectly reasonable that, when a citizen makes a complaint against a member of the Garda Siochana, the Garda authorities would try to ascertain what type of person the complainant was so that they might assess his/her reliability. Accordingly, it seems to me that Inspector Brady's enquiries into Mr. Trent's background and circumstances were perfectly legitimate and in no way offended his constitutional right to privacy. Furthermore, I do not consider that those enquiries could be equated with the type of Garda surveillance which was condemned by the Court in Kane -v- The Governor of Mountjoy Prison .

15. Mr. Trent also referred to a Judgment of the Supreme Court given in a case of The State (Trimbole) -v- The Governor of Mountjoy Prison (1985 I.R. at page 567) which is authority for the proposition that the Courts have a positive duty to protect persons against the invasion of their constitutional rights. I accept that that is so but, as I have already indicated, I do not consider that any of Mr. Trent's constitutional rights have been violated and, accordingly, I do not consider that the Judgment in Trimbole -v- The Governor of Mountjoy Prison is relevant to any issue that I have to decide in this case.

16. In the light of the foregoing, I am not satisfied that Mr. Trent has established his case and accordingly I am dismissing it.