Rush (Laurence) v Chief Constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland
| Jurisdiction | Northern Ireland |
| Judge | Master Bell |
| Neutral Citation | [2010] NIMaster 6 |
| Date | 18 May 2010 |
| Court | Unspecified Court (NI) |
1
Neutral Citation : [2010] NIMaster 6 Ref:
Judgment: approved by the Court for handing down Delivered:
18/5/10
(subject to editorial corrections)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE OF NORTHERN IRELAND
------
QUEEN’S BENCH DIVISION
------
BETWEEN:
Laurence Rush
On his own account and
As personal representative of
Elizabeth Imelda Rush [deceased]
Plaintiff;
and
The Chief Constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland
(formerly known as the Royal Ulster Constabulary)
and
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland
Defendants.
------
Master Bell
INTRODUCTION
[1] On 15 August 1998 a bomb planted by the Real IRA exploded in Main
Street, Omagh killing 29 men, women and children and two unborn babies.
Mrs Elizabeth Rush, the plaintiff’s wife, was one of those who died. In this
action Laurence Rush sues the Chief Constable of the Police Service of
Northern Ireland and the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland in connection
with the murder of Mrs Rush. In a Writ of Summons issued on 17 July 202 the
plaintiff’s claim is for damages:
2
(i) Under the Law Reform Miscellaneous Provisions
(Northern Ireland) Act 1937 by reason of the negligence,
misfeasance in public office, and breach of statutory duty
of the defendants, their agents and servants in or about
their failures in the apprehension, detection and pre-
emptive arrest of members of a criminal terrorist
conspiracy, namely the “Real IRA” who planted the bomb
which killed Mrs Rush;
(ii) Under the Fatal Accidents Order Northern Ireland 1977 for
loss and damage sustained by the plaintiff and dependants
of Mrs Rush;
(iii) Under section 7 of the Human Rights Act 1998, for a
declaration that there was a failure by both defendants to
take all such reasonable steps and measures to protect the
life of Mrs Rush and in respect of the failure by the first
defendant to fully and properly investigate her murder.
[2] A Statement of Claim was served by the plaintiff on 21 January 2004.
[3] On 16 May 2008 the defendants issued a summons seeking an order
pursuant to Order 18 Rule 19, striking out the Statement of Claim on the
ground that it disclosed no reasonable cause of action.
[4] Following initial submissions from counsel I granted leave to the
plaintiff to amend his Statement of Claim so as to include, inter alia,
allegations concerning the bombers’ mobile phone communications. I also
granted leave to the defendants to amend their Summons so as to include a
ground that the claim was frivolous and vexatious. An amended (but
undated) Statement of Claim and an amended Summons were subsequently
filed. The amended Summons was grounded by an affidavit from Mr Murray
of the Crown Solicitor’s Office. The application now being made on behalf of
the defendants seeks to have the Statement of Claim struck out on the basis
that it discloses no reasonable cause of action and, or alternatively, on the
basis that it is frivolous or vexatious. The question underlying the application
is, if the police are alerted to a threat to life and take no action to prevent the
carrying out of that threat, may a victim obtain compensation in the civil
courts and, if so, in what circumstances?
[5] The plaintiff was represented at the hearings before me by Mr Coyle
and the defendants by Mr McEvoy. I am indebted to both counsel for their
written and oral submissions.
BREACH OF ARTICLE 2 OF THE CONVENTION
To continue reading
Request your trial