O'Halloran, Eileen v The Chief Constable of The Police Service of Northern Ireland and The Ministry of Defence
| Jurisdiction | Northern Ireland |
| Judge | Keegan J |
| Judgment Date | 30 March 2020 |
| Neutral Citation | [2020] NIQB 30 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Northern Ireland) |
| Date | 30 March 2020 |
1
Neutral Citation No: [2020] NIQB 30
Judgment: approved by the Court for handing down
(subject to editorial corrections)*
Ref: KEE11231
Delivered: 30/03/2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE IN NORTHERN IRELAND
_______
QUEEN’S BENCH DIVISION
_______
BETWEEN:
EILEEN O’HALLORAN
Plaintiff;
-v-
THE CHIEF CONSTABLE OF THE POLICE SERVICE
OF NORTHERN IRELAND
First Defendant;
-and-
THE MINISTRY OF DEFENCE
Second Defendant.
______
KEEGAN J
The Plaintiff’s claim
[1] The plaintiff’s claim is for damages (including aggravated and exemplary
damages) for personal injuries, loss and damage sustained by herself by reason of
the alleged misfeasance in public office and/or assault by the first and second
defendants with respect to the psychiatric injuries suffered by the plaintiff following
the attack on “the Hole in the Wall Club, Belfast” on 7 April 1975. The plaintiff’s
claim is brought against the first defendant as a successor of the Royal Ulster
Constabulary, the police force with responsibility for Northern Ireland at all material
times. The plaintiff alleges that the first defendant is vicariously liable for the acts
and omissions of its servants, agents or employees who were involved, the plaintiff
alleges, in the attack. The plaintiff also alleges that the second defendant is
vicariously liable for the acts and omissions of its servants, agents or employees
involved in the act. The plaintiff alleges that at all material times, servants, agents or
2
employees of the first defendant working for Special Branch, a department of the
first defendant were running agents and/or informants in Northern Ireland. Also at
all materials time, servants, agents or employees of unknown units/departments of
the second defendant were running agents and/or informants in Northern Ireland.
Factual Background
[2] The plaintiff’s case is as follows. On 7 April 1975 the plaintiff’s husband
Martin O’Halloran was waiting for a bus at the corner of Oldpark Road and
Ballynure Street in Belfast opposite the Hole in the Wall Club. An Austin 1100
pulled up at the corner driven by an unknown man and a known man Trevor King
who was sitting in the front passenger seat. The vehicle stopped and the driver got
out and ran away while King exited and walked to the boot where he lit a fuse of a
bomb which was in the boot. King then ran away from the vehicle and the bomb
exploded. The plaintiff’s husband was injured in the bombing and was taken to the
Mater Hospital.
[3] At this time the plaintiff was a patient in the Mater Hospital in relation to an
unrelated matter. The plaintiff states that she overheard a person say that a man she
identified as her husband had been badly injured in an explosion. This information
traumatised the plaintiff. The plaintiff states that on an unknown date shortly after
the bombing the plaintiff’s husband was interviewed at the Mater Hospital by two
unknown officers of the first defendant from CID at Tennent Street RUC station.
The officers asked the plaintiff’s husband if he had identified any of the perpetrators
of the bombing. The plaintiff’s husband identified Trevor King to the officers. The
officers told the plaintiff’s husband that they would return. However, the plaintiff
states that they did not return to meet the plaintiff’s husband at any point and he
was not contacted by any officer of the first defendant. The plaintiff states that at the
material time Trevor King and/or unknown other individuals involved in the
planning and/or implementation of the attack on the Hole in the Wall Club were
servants, agents or employees of the first defendant and/or the second defendant.
The plaintiff alleges battery by the first defendant. The plaintiff states that she was a
secondary victim of an assault on her husband who was assaulted by battery when
he suffered injuries when King, a servant, agent or employee of the first defendant
and/or another unknown servant, agent or employee of the first defendant
detonated a car bomb outside the Hole in the Wall Club on 7 April 1975.
[4] Additionally the plaintiff alleges that the first defendant’s officers committed
the tort of misfeasance in public office. The plaintiff invites the court to infer that the
first defendant knew that, or was reckless about whether, by reason of the conduct of
their servants, agents of employees they would more than likely cause injury to the
plaintiff by King, a servant, agent or employee of the first defendant, being involved
in the planning and/or detonation of a car bomb outside the Hole in the Wall Club.
The plaintiff alleges that King, a servant, agent or employee of the first defendant
and/or other unknown servants, agents or employees of the first defendant failed to
take all reasonable steps to prevent a real and immediate risk to the plaintiff’s
To continue reading
Request your trial