An admission of liability by the State in an action for damages by Frank McBrearty jnr, arising from his wrongful treatment at the hands of some gardaí in Co Donegal, fails to address the "manufacture" by gardaí of a "confession" by Mr McBrearty to a crime which did not occur, the murder of cattle dealer Richie Barron, the High Court was told yesterday.
Martin Giblin SC, for Mr McBrearty, said the admission of liability was "partial", "extremely enigmatic" and "highly unsatisfactory".
He said it failed to mention the most fundamental issue for his client - the manufacturing of the "confession" to a crime which did not occur and which Mr McBrearty did not commit.
This was the most serious trespass committed against Mr McBrearty and was causing great problems for him.
However, George Birmingham SC, for the State, denied there was any "enigma" about the admission of liability and said the State had spelled out precisely the basis on which it was approaching the action brought by Mr McBrearty.
The issue of the confession had yet to be examined by the Morris tribunal. Mr Birmingham said that, despite the admission of liability, it appeared Mr Giblin wished to litigate other issues about causation and to run "a parallel Morris tribunal". If that happened, the action would take months.
Counsel were making submissions at a hearing before the President of the High Court, Mr Justice Joseph Finnegan, aimed at effective management of issues in the damages action by Mr McBrearty. The judge made further directions in the case and listed it for further mention on July 1st next.
In his submissions, Mr Giblin said his client's claim for special damages ranged from a "low water mark" of some €462,000 to a maximum but, he considered, "unlikely" figure of some €8.3 million. That figure was dependent on the court's view of the medical and earnings consequences of the wrongs done to Mr McBrearty by gardaí.
Mr Giblin also said he would be arguing it was open to the court to award punitive damages to his client in light of the State's handling of the claim and the nature of the admission of liability. This admission was more important than money and his client wanted to ask the court to express its disfavour with the approach adopted.
Counsel said a psychiatrist who had assessed Mr McBrearty for the State believed he suffered from post-traumatic stress syndrome while the plaintiff's psychiatrist believed he had suffered a post-traumatic stress reaction. Given those findings, there was hope there might be agreement on the medical evidence.
He also hoped the various experts for the sides would reach agreement on other issues in the coming days.
