McKenna v Ministry of Defence [2023] NICA 85 (13 October 2023)

McKenna v Ministry of Defence [2023] NICA 85 (13 October 2023)

The trial judge's findings that the soldiers came under sustained attack, that the use of the baton round was reasonable and justified, and that the plaintiff was an innocent bystander but not the intended target, were supported by the evidence and not vitiated by any legal or factual error. The absence of certain records and witnesses did not undermine the judge's findings. There was no basis for appellate intervention.

Citation
[2023] NICA 85
Parties
Plaintiff/appellant: Gavin McKenna; Defendant/respondent: Ministry of Defence
Jurisdiction
Northern Ireland
Judgment Date
13 October 2023
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Judgment Dismissing Claim for Damages for Personal Injuries and Special Damage
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Battery, Negligence, Use of Force by State Agents, Appellate Review, Credibility of Witnesses
Tort Law Personal Injury Public Law Battery Negligence Use of Force by State Agents Appellate Review Credibility of Witnesses

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 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Gavin McKenna

Plaintiff/appellant

Ministry of Defence

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Judgment Dismissing Claim for Damages for Personal Injuries and Special Damage

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge erred in dismissing the plaintiff's claims for battery and negligence against the Ministry of Defence arising from injury by a plastic bullet
  2. 2 Whether the use of force by the soldier was reasonable and justified in the circumstances
  3. 3 Whether deficiencies in documentary evidence and training records should lead to adverse inferences against the Ministry of Defence

Ratio Decidendi

The trial judge's findings that the soldiers came under sustained attack, that the use of the baton round was reasonable and justified, and that the plaintiff was an innocent bystander but not the intended target, were supported by the evidence and not vitiated by any legal or factual error. The absence of certain records and witnesses did not undermine the judge's findings. There was no basis for appellate intervention.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Order of the High Court affirmed; plaintiff's claim for damages remains dismissed