Walshe -v- Fennessy & Ors & Bedford -v- Fennessy & Ors [2005] IESC 51 (28 July 2005)

Walshe -v- Fennessy & Ors & Bedford -v- Fennessy & Ors [2005] IESC 51 (28 July 2005)

The Supreme Court held that the arrest of Garda Walshe was lawful because Detective Inspector Fennessy had sufficient information from the confidential C77 document, in addition to the direction from his superior, to form a bona fide and reasonable suspicion as required by s.30 of the Offences against the State Act, 1939. The trial judge erred in finding otherwise. In contrast, the arrest of Kay Bedford was unlawful because the arresting officer, Sergeant O’Shea, lacked any specific or corroborated information beyond a general assertion, which was insufficient to ground reasonable suspicion. The damages awarded to Ms. Bedford were not excessive given the circumstances.

Citation
[2005] IESC 51
Parties
Plaintiff/respondent: Anselm Joseph Walshe; Plaintiff/respondent: Kay Bedford; First Named Defendant/appellant: Anthony Fennessy; Second Named Defendant/appellant: Thomas A. Sloyan; Third Named Defendant/appellant: The Minister for Justice; Fourth Named Defendant/appellant: Ireland; Fifth Named Defendant/appellant: The Attorney General
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
28 July 2005
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Judgment on Appeal From High Court
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part and dismissed in part
Legal Topics
Unlawful Arrest, Reasonable Suspicion, Damages for Wrongful Detention, Police Powers, Costs
Constitutional Law Criminal Law Tort Law Unlawful Arrest Reasonable Suspicion Damages for Wrongful Detention Police Powers Costs

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Anselm Joseph Walshe

Plaintiff/respondent

Kay Bedford

Plaintiff/respondent

Anthony Fennessy

First Named Defendant/appellant

Thomas A. Sloyan

Second Named Defendant/appellant

The Minister for Justice

Third Named Defendant/appellant

Ireland

Fourth Named Defendant/appellant

The Attorney General

Fifth Named Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Judgment on Appeal From High Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the arrests of Anselm Walshe and Kay Bedford under s.30 of the Offences against the State Act, 1939 were lawful
  2. 2 Whether the arresting officers had the requisite bona fide and reasonable suspicion required by law
  3. 3 Whether the awards of damages were excessive

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court held that the arrest of Garda Walshe was lawful because Detective Inspector Fennessy had sufficient information from the confidential C77 document, in addition to the direction from his superior, to form a bona fide and reasonable suspicion as required by s.30 of the Offences against the State Act, 1939. The trial judge erred in finding otherwise. In contrast, the arrest of Kay Bedford was unlawful because the arresting officer, Sergeant O’Shea, lacked any specific or corroborated information beyond a general assertion, which was insufficient to ground reasonable suspicion. The damages awarded to Ms. Bedford were not excessive given the circumstances.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part and dismissed in part

Orders

  • Finding that the arrest of Garda Walshe was lawful; damages award to Walshe set aside
  • Finding that the arrest of Kay Bedford was unlawful; damages award to Bedford upheld