British
and Irish Legal Information Institute
Freely Available British and Irish Public Legal Information
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
High Court of Ireland Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> High Court of Ireland Decisions >> Knowles v. Minister for Defence [2002] IEHC 39 (22 February 2002)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/ie/cases/IEHC/2002/39.html
Cite as: [2002] IEHC 39
[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
THE HIGH COURT
1997 No 687p
BETWEEN
CHRISTOPHER KNOWLES
PLAINTIFF
AND
THE MINISTER FOR DEFENCE, IRELAND AND THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
DEFENDANTS
JUDGMENT of Mr Justice Diarmuid B. O'Donovan delivered on the 22nd day of February, 2002.
1. This plaintiff maintains that, while a member of the Irish Defence Forces serving as part of the Irish contingent of the United Nations peacekeeping force in the Lebanon in the year 1978, he was exposed to events which gave rise to severe psychological and psychiatric problems which progressed to a condition of chronic post traumatic stress disorder. He does not blame the army for the fact that he suffered such psychological and psychiatric problems. However, he maintains that having suffered such problems; the symptoms of which were manifest at the time, the army negligently failed to identify and treat those problems; so much so that, with the passage of time, Mr Knowles’ psychological health deteriorated to the extent that he is now so psychologically damaged that he is incapable of leading a normal existence and, in particular, is incapable of earning a living, or of enjoying life to any significant degree. Furthermore, Mr Knowles maintains that, had the army identified the psychological and psychiatric problems which he developed while a serving soldier in the Lebanon in the year 1978, as they ought to have, and had they arranged that he receive appropriate treatment for those conditions at that time, his psychological health would be considerably better than it now is; if, indeed, he would not have been entirely cured of those problems. Accordingly, Mr Knowles comes before the court seeking damages by way of compensation for the negligent failure of the army to identify and treat the psychological and psychiatric problems which he developed in the year 1978.
2. In the circumstance that, in their defence delivered herein, the defendants claim (inter alia) that the plaintiff's claim herein is barred by virtue of the provisions of the Statute of Limitations 1957 to 1991, I decided to determine that issue as a preliminary issue and, having heard evidence from the plaintiff in that regard, I concluded that his claim herein is not statute barred for the reason that, while it is clear that, at all material times since the year 1978, the plaintiff believed that the psychological problems of which he complained and continues to complain were attributable to events which occurred while he was a serving soldier in the Lebanon, it was not until he was referred to Dr Ian Daly, a consultant psychiatrist, in the year 1996 that he first appreciated that those problems could have been alleviated and, possibly, eradicated had he been prescribed appropriate treatment by the army medical corps at the time that he is alleged to have manifested psychological and psychiatric symptoms in the Lebanon. In those circumstances, I was satisfied that Mr Knowles date of knowledge that he had a cause of action, within the meaning of the provisions of the Statute of Limitations (Amendment) Act, 1991, was when he saw Dr Daly in 1996 and that, therefore, his claim herein is not statute barred. In this regard, notwithstanding that I made that determination on the 28th November last, the defendants revisited the issue as to whether or not the plaintiff's claim herein is statute barred in their submissions herein dated the 19th December, 2001. In that regard, it is clear from those submissions that the defendants' advisers do not appreciate the basis upon which the plaintiff's claim herein is founded. It is not based on an allegation that the defendants negligently inflicted psychiatric damage on the plaintiff, as is suggested by those submissions. If that were the basis for the plaintiff's claim, then there is no doubt but that it would be statute barred because, in the course of his evidence, the plaintiff acknowledged that he was aware that the problems of which he has complained since he went to the Lebanon in 1978 were attributable to events which occurred at that time. However, the fact of the matter is that he does not complain that the defendants negligently inflicted psychiatric damage on him but rather that, having developed psychological and psychiatric problems which he maintains were manifest and ought to have been recognised as such by the defendants, the defendants negligently failed to initiate appropriate treatment for those problems and that it was not until the year 1996 that the plaintiff first knew that he had a claim against the defendants based on such negligent failure.
3. In support of his claim herein, the plaintiff, who is a 45 year old married man without a family living in Clondalkin in the county of Dublin, gave evidence that he enlisted in the Irish army for a three year term in the year 1976 and completed his recruitment training at the Curragh Camp following which he "passed out" as "one of the best soldiers in the platoon" or so it was certified on the 14th February, 1997 by Capt. F. Burns, the officer in charge of the recruitment training course. The plaintiff said that, at that stage, he had no medical problems and that his army medical grade was "A.1". He said that, in the year 1978, he volunteered to go to the Lebanon as a member of the first Irish Battalion to go on United Nations peacekeeping duties to that area. His application was acceded to and he said that he was very honoured to be selected to go on that tour which departed in the month of June in 1978. In this regard, I heard evidence from a Mr Derek Strictland, who was a member of the Defence Forces from the year 1973 to 1979 and who described the plaintiff, before he went to the Lebanon as a man who had been involved in everything that everyone else did; a man who took a drink, a man who was involved in all sports and, in particular, a man who was a very good boxer and had won boxing championships. Another witness, Christopher Noel McNamara, who had been a member of the Defence Forces between the years 1975 and 1979 and who said that he knew the plaintiff well, described him, before he went to the Lebanon, as an average person and in certain respects a fine person. On the other hand, in a recruit training report to which I was referred and, which appears to have been prepared on the 2nd December, 1976, the plaintiff's general rating includes comments that "he is very quiet and lacks self-confidence" and "Private Knowles is a fair soldier but needs supervision".
4. Mr. Knowles presented in the witness box as a person with a very damaged personality and to say that his evidence was less than precise would, in my view, be a gross understatement. He expressed himself very badly; indeed, in my view, he bordered on the inarticulate and, in so far as he purported to recount past events, he was vague and imprecise and, generally speaking, he did not impress me as a person on whose evidence I could place much reliance. This is not to say that I thought that Mr. Knowles was deliberately telling me untruths or that he was trying to mislead the Court. On the contrary, I thought that he made every effort to paint as accurate a picture as he could of his life in the army and thereafter and that he genuinely believed in the truth of every piece of evidence which he gave. However, in the light of the medical evidence which I heard, I am satisfied that Christopher Knowles, is psychologically, a very unwell person, and, given that fact, and that, for the reasons to which I have already averted, he presented as a very unimpressive and unreliable witness, I viewed all his evidence with considerable reservations.
5. Christopher Knowles gave evidence, that, when he arrived in the Lebanon, he was posted to A company, who he said were a great body of men, that he loved them and got on well with them. However, he described an incident, which, apparently, occurred shortly after he arrived in the Lebanon which he maintained had a considerable traumatic effect on him. This was an occasion when, with others, he was filling sand bags on a beach when he heard the firing of weapons which, with the passage of time, got closer and, then he saw the shadows of twelve to fifteen people aged between “thirteen years and twenty to thirty years”. These people were half dressed and they were firing guns and they came closer and closer to him and he said that he was very frightened. He said that he felt that he would be killed. As I interpreted his evidence, it seems that, following that incident, the plaintiff developed pains in his eyes and started bedwetting which he had not done previously. In this regard, his L.A. 30, which is his official army medical record, records that, on the 22nd of June, 1978, he was complaining of bedwetting which it is suggested that he had never previously experienced although it is recorded that his sister suffered from a similar malady. At the same time, the record also seems to suggest that, on examination, Mr. Knowles had no urinary problems. On that occasion, it appears that he was admitted to what he described as a hospital for five days although, in the light of other evidence which I heard, it seems that what Mr. Knowles described as a hospital was more a first aid post. Indeed, it was described by other witnesses as a regional aid post, (R.A.P.) Furthermore, Mr. Knowles’ L.A. 30 records that, on the 25th of June, 1978 he was suffering from “depression - reactive to home separation”. A medical case sheet which was created at that time and which was also introduced in evidence, noted that the Plaintiff “cannot settle in, worries about mother and sister at home all the time, difficulty in getting to sleep and also some anorexia. Enuresis for past 1/52”. That record also notes that the plaintiff’s history indicated that he was a “worrier by nature” and that, on his admission to the first aid post, he was crying, depressed and was suffering from “reactive depression”. In this regard, as I interpreted the plaintiff’s evidence, and, as I have indicated, he was not a very coherent witness, it seems, that while he was in this “hospital” (regional aid post) he asked the doctor to be allowed to go home because he said that, at that stage he could not cope.
6. In this regard, it appears, that while he was a patient at the regional aid post, the Plaintiff made an undated application in writing to his company Commander, Commandant M. Wright, to be repatriated to Ireland; the stated reason for that application being “I am worried about my mother. I know she is not well. I tried very hard to settle in but I can’t help worrying about her. My father is dead. My mother lives on her own and she is sixty-two years old. Sir I am sorry for the hassle I caused but I can’t help it. I have a lot of home problems and it is difficult for me Sir.” Mr. Knowles was shown that letter and agreed that he had written it but he could not say why, in that letter, he had not mentioned the traumatic incident on the beach which had frightened him. However, Commandant, (now Colonel) Wright gave evidence that, while, at this remove, he had no recollection of the Plaintiff, that letter appeared to have been addressed to him and, following receipt of it, he appears to have written a letter dated the 26th of June, 1978 to the adjutant of the 43rd infantry battalion advising him of the Plaintiff’s application for repatriation and indicating that, following that application, he (Colonel Wright) had interviewed the Plaintiff and formed the opinion that he was in a very depressed state. In that letter, Colonel Wright also advised the adjutant that he had written to a Lieutenant Ray McNicholas, a social science graduate to check with the Plaintiff’s mother and he (Colonel Wright) advised that, pending a reply from Lieutenant McNicholas and a report from the medical officer, no further action should be taken on the Plaintiff’s application for repatriation. Colonel Wright produced another document, which, apparently, is a memorandum dated the 30th of June, 1978 from the officer commanding A company to the officer commanding HQ company in the Lebanon, the import of which was that the Plaintiff had spoken to a priest following which he had decided to reconsider his application for repatriation but that he was anxious to join his friends at HQ company and to work there. Mr. Knowles said that he could not recall meeting a priest after he had written to Commandant Wright. By that memorandum, the officer commanding A company wished to know if the officer commanding HQ company would be willing to accept the Plaintiff, adding that the medical officer and the priest were of the view that the Plaintiff’s attachment to HQ company would be of assistance to him. In that regard, I was referred to a clinical chart referring to the Plaintiff on which it appears that, on the 30th of June, 1978 the Plaintiff was certified as being fit for discharge from the regional aid post and the medical case sheet, to which I have already referred, noted that he was discharged to HQ company on the 30th of June 1978 for duty “as arranged”. In this regard, there was some controversy as to whether or not, at that stage, the Plaintiff had been forbidden to carry a gun. He, himself, appeared to be very unsure as to whether or not his gun had been taken from him and the other evidence which I heard on this point was, to say the least of it, ambivalent. However, I had evidence that, if, before his discharge from the regional aid post, he had been forbidden to carry a gun, that fact would be noted in his medical case sheet and the fact of the matter is that there is no note to that effect on that sheet so I must conclude that, in fact, the Plaintiff was not forbidden to carry a gun at this time.
7. While Colonel Wright agreed under cross-examination that it was apparent from his letter of the 26th of June, 1978 to the adjutant of the 43rd infantry battalion that he considered that, at the time, the Plaintiff was in a very depressed state, as I interpreted the Colonel’s evidence, it was his view that that depression was related to home sickness although he agreed that, in his experience, bedwetting was not usually associated with symptoms of home sickness and, indeed, he was surprised that the Plaintiff was suffering from bedwetting at the time and that he required hospital treatment. Nevertheless, he said that it was not unusual for soldiers to suffer from home sickness and that he assumed that the reason that a meeting appeared to have taken place between Mr. Knowles and a priest was for the purpose of trying to talk Mr. Knowles out of wanting to go home because it was his, Colonel Wright’s view, that it was in this Plaintiff’s better interests that he should not go home given that, if he did, the likelihood was that other soldiers would jeer him.
8. Dr. David Morgan, who qualified as a medical doctor in the year 1974 and received a commission from the Irish Army in the month of July, 1975 gave evidence that he was appointed Senior Medical Officer to the Irish Contingent of the United Nations Peace Keeping Force in the Lebanon in the year 1978 and he said that every soldier, who, went on that tour, was subjected to a special medical examination before they went. He said, that, when he was in the Lebanon, he was based at a regimental aid post in Tibnin which was sometimes referred to as a hospital. However, he said that that aid post would not cater for serious medical problems and that, when such problems arose, they were referred to a Norwegian Hospital located at place called Naqoura. He said that there were only nine beds at the aid post. When asked what he knew about the Plaintiff, Christopher Knowles, Dr. Morgan said he had no specific recollection of him; it being 23 years since he was in the Lebanon, and that the only evidence that he could give was by reference to written medical records compiled at the time. In that regard, he said that it appeared that he would have had dealings with Mr. Knowles on two days; firstly on the 22nd of June, 1978, and again, in September, 1978. He said that the record showed, that on the 22nd June, 1978, Mr. Knowles reported sick; that he complained of bedwetting but did not manifest urinary problems. Dr. Morgan said that he was prescribed a low dose of antidepressant which he said was used to treat bedwetting, but, nevertheless, was certified fit for duty on that day. However, the records show that, on the 25th of June, 1978, Mr. Knowles had again reported sick, and was diagnosed as suffering from “depression reactive to home separation” and that he was admitted to sick bay, being the regimental aid post. Dr. Morgan referred to a document called a A.F. 177, being the medical case sheet, to which I have already referred. He said that he was the medical officer who entered the information on that sheet. This document records that, on admission to the aid post, Mr. Knowles was “crying and looks depressed” and that he complained “cannot settle in, worries about mother and sister at home all the time, difficulty in getting to sleep but also some anorexia” . He had also complained of bedwetting for the previous week. The case sheet noted a previous history of being a “worrier by nature”, and also noted a diagnosis of “reactive depression” which Dr. Morgan said was due to separation from home, or home sickness. Dr. Morgan also said that, had the Plaintiff made any reference to a traumatic event which was affecting him at the time, he (Dr. Morgan) would have entered that fact in the medical case sheet because he would have taken a detailed history from the Plaintiff at the time, and, therefore, the conclusion must be that the Plaintiff had not given such a history. Furthermore, Dr. Morgan said that, at the time, the Plaintiff was prescribed antidepressants. Dr. Morgan indicated that the records show that the Plaintiff was kept in the sick bay for five days; and that he was then discharged to H.Q. Company with the recommendation that he was fit “for duty as arranged” . Dr. Morgan explained that this meant that the Plaintiff, who had come from A. Company to the first aid post was discharged to Headquarters Company which was not his parent unit; the implication being that a Captain Baines, another medical officer who had discharged him, had made appropriate arrangements with the company commander of the Head Quarters Company. Dr. Morgan could not say what exactly those arrangements were.
9. The Plaintiff gave evidence that, after his discharge from the regional aid post, he recalls being in a different place; a cook house, doing cleaning work. This was not in A. Company but in H.Q. Company. He said that, at that stage, he felt that he was a coward and, indeed, he said that Commandant Wright had said to him that, had he gone home, people would have called him a coward. Nevertheless, he reiterated that he kept asking to go home. He also said that he continued to wet his bed and, indeed, has done so from that time up to the present day. Mr. Knowles also gave evidence with regard to another incident, which he maintained had had a traumatic effect on him. In that regard, he said he recalls one night when he was on duty on his own at an out post, that he was carrying a gun, that he saw a light and that it appeared to be coming towards him. He said that he telephoned headquarters and reported the incident but his impression was that the response which he got was laughter. He said that the light came nearer to him, that he cocked his gun and, again, rang headquarters saying that, if someone did not come, he would discharge the gun because, as he explained, he was convinced that he was in danger. The response to that threat from Head Quarters was “don’t do anything” and the Plaintiff said that he recalls nothing else of that incident. He said that he was told later on that the light which he saw was a lantern being carried by a Lebanese farmer, who was picking vegetables. Mr. Knowles was asked if, whether or not, following that incident, his gun was taken from him but he could not recall whether or not it had been. Neither could he recall whether or not he was on any medication at that time. However, he said that, he felt that people were sniggering at him and that, as time went by, his well being deteriorated to the extent that he was drained out, confused, walking around in a daze, frightened and not knowing what he was doing and he said that people must have noticed his condition. He said that he was in that condition for the balance of the time that he spent in the Lebanon and, apparently, it was ignored by his superiors. He also said that he had to sleep in different tents because the boys did not want him sleeping in their tent. He said that they had said that they did not trust him, that they did not know what was going to happen with him around. In this regard, I also heard evidence from Mr. Michael Harris, who told me that he was a former member of the Defence Forces and, in particular, that he had been part of the Irish Contingent of the United Nations Peacekeeping Force in the Lebanon in the year 1978. He said that he was attached to Head Quarters Company and that he first came across the Plaintiff when he was advised by his section Commander, a Corporal Shay Walsh, that there was young guy coming in from A. Company, who knew some of the guys in Head Quarters Company and that he was not doing too well in the Lebanon. Mr. Harris said that he had asked the Corporal what he meant when he said that the Plaintiff was not doing well, to which Corporal Walsh responded “apparently, he has been in hospital and he is not happy”. Mr. Harris said that he understood that to mean that Mr. Knowles was not able for the strain or stresses of the job and he added that, in his view, life in the Lebanon at that time was, as he put it “stressful enough” although he qualified that by saying that the stress was related to the fact that you were away from your family and that communications were not great although he added that there was a lot of fear arising from the fact that there were a lot of weapons around. He said that, while, initially, the Plaintiff was kept at the camp at Head Quarters, later on he did the same duties as everyone else. Mr. Harris said that the Plaintiff had been billeted with Mr. Noel McNamara, who was in the tent next to him and that he considered the Plaintiff to be a shy introverted sort of person with a feeble handshake. Nevertheless, Mr. Harris said that the Plaintiff came across as someone who was normal although he had said to him (Mr. Harris) that he missed his family and that he wanted to go home. Mr. Harris said that he never saw the Plaintiff following his return from the Lebanon. However, he said that, some time in late 1994 or early 1995 he received a call from Mr. Noel McNamara, who advised him that Mr. Knowles was in a bit of bother. Mr. Harris said that, at that time, he was barrack personnel support officer and controlled an information and referral service to social workers. He said that, as a result of what Mr. McNamara had said to him, an appointment was made for him to meet Mr. Knowles and that he did so, and when he saw him, he was shocked because he thought that the Plaintiff was very unsteady, was nervous, that he blinked all the time, that he was fidgety and that he would not look him straight in the face. He said that Mr. Knowles had indicated that he wanted help, but not money, and that he (Mr. Harris) understood this to mean physiological help and that he told Mr. Knowles that he would get in touch with a social worker. However, before he could do that, the Plaintiff contacted him and told him that his (the Plaintiff’s) nephew had got in touch with someone from Baldonnell and that he was going to see someone up there. Mr. Harris said that he had had no further involvement with the Plaintiff. Under cross-examination, Mr. Harris said that, when he first met the Plaintiff in the Lebanon, he was concerned that he could not carry out his functions as a soldier; the reason for that concern being that he had been transferred from A. Company which Mr. Harris said was very unusual because A. Company was on the front line whereas Head Quarters Company was involved with maintenance, building of an infrastructure and clearance of mines. In this regard, while Mr. Harris said that he did not consider the Plaintiff to be unfit to be a member of his (Mr. Harris’s) Platoon, he did not think that he would be able to carry out his duties correctly in the manner in which he (Mr. Harris) had been trained. In that regard, Mr. Harris said that the Plaintiff was very nervous, very shaky and did not really mingle with others. However, he agreed, that, when he met Mr. Knowles in 1995 he was very different from what he had been in the Lebanon. At that time, it was Mr. Harris’s view that the Plaintiff was physically drained. Moreover, Mr. Harris said, that, when he was in the Lebanon, he voiced his concern about Mr. Knowles’ capacity to carry out his duties to the section Commander, Corporal Shay Walsh; indicating that he (Mr. Harris) was not very comfortable with going out on a mission with Mr. Knowles because he looked unsteady and lacking in confidence. In that regard, Mr. Harris said that, while he had been on nine overseas trips with the army, the Plaintiff was the only person he ever came across who caused him concern. As I interpreted Mr. Harris’s evidence, while he said that Corporal Walsh agreed with him that the Plaintiff was not up to scratch, there does not appear to have been any follow up to the expression of concern which Mr. Harris made to Corporal Walsh, and apparently, he only expressed that concern on one occasion. Mr. Harris reiterated that the Plaintiff had spoken to him about wanting to go home but that, if he did, he was only one of a number of soldiers who he had heard to express a wish to be repatriated. He said that that was a frequent occurrence. Mr. Harris added that he had been discharged from the army on two occasions and that, on each occasion, he had been subjected to a medical examination before discharge; the latter examination being the more thorough.
10. Mr. Christopher McNamara, who had told me that he considered the Plaintiff to be an average person before he went to the Lebanon, gave evidence that he had been in the Lebanon at the same time as the Plaintiff and he recounted an occasion when his platoon sergeant, a Sergeant McDermott, had told him that Christie Knowles had “gone wonky” and had been in hospital and the sergeant asked Mr. McNamara would it be all right if Mr. Knowles stayed with him in his (Mr. McNamara’s) billet. Mr. McNamara said that the request had been made of him by Sergeant McDermott because the sergeant knew that he had been a friend of Mr. Knowles and, accordingly Christopher Knowles was billeted with Mr. McNamara. (while, in the course of his evidence, Mr. McNamara made several references to this Sergeant Mc Dermott and recounted conversations with regard to the Plaintiff he maintained that he had had with Sergeant McDermott, towards the end of his evidence, he conceded that he was mistaken about the name of the Sergeant; the fact of the matter being that the man’s name was Patrick Donoghue, although Mr. McNamara said that he used to call him “Mags”, but he accepted that there was no Sergeant McDermott.) Mr. McNamara said that, at that time, Mr. Knowles appeared to him to be very nervous and shaken, that his eyes flickered and that all he wanted to do was to go home. He said that, in his view, he was a very different person from the Christopher Knowles that he had known before they went to the Lebanon. Furthermore, he said that Mr. Knowles was unable to sleep and that his rifle had been taken off him. He said that, at night time, Mr. Knowles would be walking around, crying and saying that he wanted to go home. He said that this would happen three or four nights a week and that it was well known in the platoon. Moreover, Mr. McNamara said that he had asked Sergeant Donoghue if there was any possibility of getting Mr. Knowles sent home. He said that the sergeant had indicated that he would see Mr. Knowles’ Platoon Sergeant in A. Company and the Commanding Officer of that platoon. Mr. McNamara added, as far as he was aware, Mr. Knowles was the only person in the Lebanon who was allowed to sleep with a friend outside of his own unit. He also said that he had to write to Mr. Knowles’ mother for him because Mr. Knowles could not put pen to paper because it seemed to him (Mr. McNamara) that his (Mr. Knowles’) nerves were shattered. He said that he mentioned to Sergeant Donoghue on three or four occasions that he thought that Mr. Knowles should be sent home and, after that, he thought that there was no point in his saying it any more although he added that it was his recollection that between twenty and forty soldiers were flown home from the Lebanon because they could not handle the situation there. Mr. McNamara said, that, as far as he could recall, Mr. Knowles did not do any security duties and he did not do any engineering duties because he was not trained for such duties, as was Mr. McNamara. He did recall, however, seeing Mr. Knowles with plumbers. In this regard, I heard evidence from Patrick Donoghue, who told me that he had been a sergeant in the Irish Army and had served in the Lebanon in the year 1978 in the Headquarters Unit. Mr. Donoghue told me that, some time last year, without any prior warning, he had received a subpoena requiring him to give evidence at the trial of this action. When he received that subpoena, he could not recall the Plaintiff, Christopher Knowles. Indeed, he did not even recognise him when he came to Court in response to the subpoena. However, he said that he thought that he recognised Noel McNamara, when he saw him in Court. Nevertheless, Mr. Donoghue said that he had no recollection whatsoever of having any conversations in the Lebanon with Mr. McNamara with regard to the Plaintiff and, in particular, did not recall saying to Mr. McNamara that the Plaintiff had gone “wonky”. Mr. Donoghue said that Corporal Shay Walsh, who was with him in the Lebanon, is now deceased.
11. Mr. Nicholas Deveraux, who also served as part of the Irish Contingent of the United Nations Peacekeeping force in the Lebanon in the year 1978 and was a member of Head Quarters Company, gave evidence that he met the Plaintiff when he was sent to Head Quarters Company, after having spent some time in hospital. He said that Mr. Knowles appeared to him to be very nervous, very erratic and lacked confidence and that, in his view, he had no sense of direction. He said that he would have described Mr. Knowles as some one who had “cracked up” . He said that he did not express concern about Mr. Knowles to anyone because he thought that his condition was so obvious. Furthermore, he said that he never saw Mr. Knowles carrying a gun. He also said that he met Mr. Knowles once or twice after he had left the army and he still appeared to him to be nervous, erratic and without confidence. However, that would have been about twenty years later. He said that it was Mr. Knowles, himself, who had asked him to come to Court to give evidence and that had occurred on an occasion when he had met Mr. Knowles by accident about two or three years ago. Under cross-examination he said that, when he was discharged from the army, he had had to submit to a thorough medical examination.
12. Mr. Michael O’Connor, who was the Platoon Commander of No. 1 Platoon in A. Company of the Irish Contingent of the United Nations Peacekeeping Force in the Lebanon in the year 1978, said that a Sergeant Pearse was the Platoon Sergeant and that he had never heard of either a Sergeant McDermott, or a Sergent Donaghue. Neither, he said, was there a Corporal Shay Walsh in the Platoon. So far as he was aware, Corporal Walsh was in the Head Quarters Platoon. He said that, originally, the Plaintiff, Christopher Knowles, was attached to A. Company but, following his detention in the Regional Aid Post, he was transferred to Head Quarters Company. Mr. O’Connor said that, before they went to the Lebanon, his platoon had been more or less hand picked and that each member of the unit knew each other. Moreover, each member of the unit would have been subjected to a medical examination before he went to the Lebanon and one of the matters about which the doctors would enquire in the course of that examination was whether or not everything was o.k. at home in so far as the soldier was concerned. Mr. O’Connor said that, when in the Lebanon, no soldier operated individually and he totally rejected the evidence of the Plaintiff that he would have been on his own when on duty at an outpost In addition, each soldier had a meeting with a priest before he went to the Lebanon. When confronted with this evidence, the Plaintiff insisted that he had been on duty on his own when he saw the light which frightened him. Mr. O’Connor added that, if an incident such as that described by Mr. Knowles, when he allegedly threatened to fire his weapon, had occurred, it would have been recorded.
13. Mr. O’Connor said that, for his first twelve days in the Lebanon, the Plaintiff would have been at a transit camp in Tel Aviv and that, from there, the platoon transferred to an observation post, or position, located at a place called Mhaibeb which they were expected to occupy for the next ten weeks. Mr. O’Connor gave it as his recollection that, at that time, the Plaintiff was billetted with a Corporal Muldoon, who is now deceased, and that it was reported to him (Mr. O’Connor) by Sergeant Pearse, via a Corporal Muldoon, that Mr. Knowles had wet his bed. Mr. O’Connor said that he assumed that this was due to a kidney infection and he thought that he should have it checked. Accordingly, when a team was sent to Tibnin to collect rations, Mr. Knowles was included in that team, and Mr. O’Connor said that he had told him that, when he was in Tibnin, he should go to the hospital about the bedwetting. When he returned from Tibnin on the 22nd June, Mr. O’Connor said that Mr. Knowles had said to him “I want to go home”. Mr. O’Connor said that he had asked Mr. Knowles to reconsider this request, while, at the same time, telling him that he would have to advise Commandant Wright of the request. Mr. O’Connor said that, at the time that Mr. Knowles had said that he wished to go home, he made no reference to having being involved in any incident which had frightened him. He also said that he, Sergeant Pearse and the Plaintiff discussed the Plaintiff’s request to go home following which he advised the Plaintiff to put the request in writing to the Company Commander, Commandant Wright, which he did and he said that Commandant Wright then discussed the matter with him and that he (Mr. O’Connor) had said “I’m going to hold on to him for a few days and we will see what will happen. We will consider it in a couple of days”. However, on the 25th of June, 1978 when Mr. O’Connor said that the Plaintiff had told him that he had been wetting his bed for the last couple of days, Mr. O’Connor then advised him that he should go to hospital. As I understood Mr. O’Connor’s evidence, it appears that, while the Plaintiff was in hospital, he was seen by a Fr. Neville and, following that interview, it was suggested that he had changed his mind about wanting to go home and that some discussion then took place between Fr. Neville and Commandant Wright, following which Commandant Wright sought to have the Plaintiff transferred to H.Q. Company. However, Mr. O’Connor was adamant that he did not consider that the Plaintiff had a psychological problem. Rather did he think that he had a physical problem which gave rise to bedwetting. Mr. O’Connor speculated that it might have been an infection which he got while working in the transit camp at Tel Aviv which, apparently, was very physically demanding work.
14. Mr. O’Connor said that he did not know of any incident on a beach involving the Plaintiff and he was adamant that there was no mention by Mr. Knowles of any life threatening incident on a beach before he went into hospital. Indeed, Mr. O’Connor said that the Plaintiff would not have been on a beach at any time before he went into hospital; that the nearest beach to their base was forty miles away. He added that the beach was only used for recreational purposes although he conceded under cross-examination that, some times, soldiers took bags of sand from the beach to strengthen their fortifications. However, he was very emphatic that no sand bags were filled during the period before the Plaintiff went into hospital. In this regard, Mr. Knowles said that he could not recall whether or not the incident on the beach, which he had described, occurred before or after he went to hospital.
15. Mr. O’Connor was subjected to a vigorous cross-examination; the import being that, within three or four days of his arrival at base, there had been a significant disintegration in Mr. Knowles’ well-being and that from a man who was a hundred percent fit and able, he became very depressed. Mr. O’Connor did not agree. He expressed the view that Mr. Knowles was not suffering from depression but was suffering from home sickness and that the only time that he saw him after the 25th of June, 1978 was in the month of December of that year when they returned home. He said that he would have had nothing further to do with him after his hospitalisation in the Lebanon because he was then put on attachment to Head Quarters Company. Moreover, he said that, when he met him in December, Mr. Kowles did not look any different from what he had looked when he previously saw him and, in particular, he did not appear to be pale, withdrawn, nervous or confused.
16. Dr. Morgan said that the Plaintiff’s L.A. 30 records that, on the 2nd of September, 1978 he, Dr. Morgan, inoculated the Plaintiff against Hepatitis A which, apparently, was a normal procedure. Moreover, Dr. Morgan said, that while he could not actually recall administering that inoculation to Mr. Knowles, if it were the case, that, on that occasion, Mr. Knowles had presented to him with any physical or mental problem, he would have made an appropriate entry in Mr. Knowles’ L.A. 30 and, more than likely, would have admitted him to sick bay. However, there is no such entry in the L.A. 30. Dr. Morgan said that the only other entry in the Plaintiff’s L.A. 30, while he was in the Lebanon, was on the 25th of October, 1978. He said that that entry had been made by Captain Baines and that it recorded that the Plaintiff was fit “for repatriation”. Dr. Morgan said that that entry would have been made by Captain Baines following a medical examination of the Plaintiff; that is, an examination to check whether or not Mr. Knowles had any medical condition which required treatment or whether he was suffering from any unresolved medical problems which might require further attention back home in Ireland. Dr. Morgan added that the only other entry in the Plaintiff’s L.A. 30 was a record of the 5th of June, 1979 which reads “Depression fully Recovered - A.1. Termination of engagement” Dr. Morgan said that that record had been made by a Colonel Joyce, who Dr. Morgan described as being a very experienced Dr and a “very good clinician” now, regretfully, deceased. Dr. Morgan said that that entry would have followed a physical examination of the Plaintiff by Colonel Joyce to determine whether or not Mr. Knowles had any medical conditions which required treatment before he was discharged from the defence forces. In that regard, Dr. Morgan expressed the view that, had the Plaintiff presented to Dr. Joyce in the condition in which he, himself, suggested and some of his fellow soldiers agreed, that he manifested towards the end of his period in the army, he could not imagine that Colonel Joyce would not have observed that condition and recorded it. Under cross-examination, Dr. Morgan agreed that, at the time when he was in the Lebanon, he would have known about traumatic events causing mental illness and depression and that people could suffer mental breakdown because of exposure to traumatic events or even events which a person might perceive to be traumatic although, objectively, they might not be considered to be such. He also agreed that soldiers in the Lebanon would be exposed to situations of danger, to which some reacted very differently from others and that, indeed, some soldiers manifested psychological problems as a result of that exposure. He agreed that he would look out for such manifestations if a soldier came to him. However, he had diagnosed that the Plaintiff’s problems were due to home sickness. Moreover, he said that, at the time, a number of soldiers had come to him with home sickness and he recalled one particular man who, like the Plaintiff, following such a complaint, was relocated to Head Quarters Company and served the rest of his time in the Lebanon with no difficulty. Indeed, his recollection was that that man, also, had spent six days in hospital. Dr. Morgan added that the purpose of admitting someone to hospital with home sickness was to remove him from the situation in which he was when he developed the problem. Furthermore, Dr. Morgan said that, if a soldier had his weapon taken from him due to psychiatric problems, that fact would be brought to the attention of the medical personnel and that person would be brought in for medical attention. Furthermore, he would expect that if any soldier was noticed to be wandering around in a dazed fashion, or was subdued, withdrawn, crying, bedwetting and unable to write home, that fact would be brought to the attention of the medical corps and the soldier would be treated appropriately.
17. Dr. Morgan said that part of his duties as a Senior Medical Officer in the Lebanon was to fill out a medical form for every individual who served overseas with his unit, but that that did not involve a medical examination of the individual before he completed the form. In relation to Mr. Knowles, Dr. Morgan agreed, that on the 6th of November, 1978, he had certified that, while Mr. Knowles was physically suitable for overseas service, he was not psychologically suitable for it on the grounds that he deemed him to be immature on account of the episode of reactive depression due to home sickness which he manifested at the beginning of his tour of the Lebanon. However, Dr. Morgan said that that did not mean that he was forever banned from going overseas. Rather does it mean he would not be allowed to go overseas for about two years and that, at that stage, he would be assessed with regard to his psychological suitability for going overseas and, if found suitable, he would be allowed to go on another tour. With regard to the entry in the Plaintiff’s L.A. 30 on the 5th of June, 1979 which was made by Colonel Joyce following an examination of the Plaintiff prior to the determination of his engagement, Dr. Morgan said that examination would have included a mental health or psychiatric assessment by Colonel Joyce because he did not think that Colonel Joyce would have certified that the depression was fully resolved, in the absence of such an examination. Going back to the evidence given by Mr. Harris, Mr. Deveraux and Mr. McNamara with regard to the manner in which they suggested that the Plaintiff had presented when in the Lebanon, Dr. Morgan said that, if that was so, he would have expected the matter to be reported to the medical corps.
18. The Plaintiff said that, when he returned to Ireland, following his tour of duty in the Lebanon, he did not really know where he was. He said that he was just lulling around the barracks and that nobody wanted to know him. He said that he asked a Sergeant for help but that he just walked away from him. He said that he could not recall whether or not he was on any medication at that time or whether or not he saw a doctor between the time that he came home from the Lebanon and the time that he left the Army. He did remember being put into a truck and brought to the cook house in the Curragh Camp although he said that he did not want to go to the Curragh Camp. He said that he felt that he was being punished and pleaded that he did not want to go to the Curragh. He said that, at that time, he was ostracised and bullied, that soldiers spat on the ground as he passed by and called him all sorts of names, that he was made to stand to attention and that he had no friends in the Army. He said that he tried to fit in, that he apologised but that nobody wanted to know. When it was pointed out to him that, on his discharge, he was graded as Medical Category A.1. the said that that was not true, that it was unfair to say so and that he could bring a thousand people to court to say that he was not well. Moreover he said that he had asked for help when he was in the Army, but was refused it. He summarised his situation by saying that there was nothing wrong with him before he went to the Lebanon and that everything was wrong with him when he came back and when he was discharged from the Army. Moreover he said that he was intimidated, bullied and frightened out of the Army which, before he went to the Lebanon, he had intended to make his career. In fact, he said that, at one stage, he was told that an Officer was going to kill him. Mr. Knowles said that he had no recollection of being subjected to a medical examination before he was discharged from the army in June of 1979.
19. The Plaintiff gave evidence that, after he was discharged from the army, he tried to get work. However, he said that he felt drained, had pains in his eyes, had a tendency to falling asleep and felt that he did not fit in anywhere. In any event, for whatever reason, he said that he never succeeded in obtaining permanent employment although, from time to time, he obtained odd jobs of work on building sites. He said that, some time in the year 1981, his mother brought him to a Dr O’Maille because, as he said, he was nervous and did not feel the same man that he had been. He said that Dr O’Maille gave him medication and that, at that time, he (the Plaintiff) was living on social welfare.
20. Dr Michael O’Maille gave evidence that, while he was not the Plaintiff’s G.P., he saw the Plaintiff at various times between the years 1981 and 1983. He said that the fact of the matter was that the Plaintiff was a patient of a colleague of his, Dr Michael Rochford, who lived next door to him and, while they were not partners, he saw the Plaintiff if and when Dr Rochford was on holidays. In this regard, Dr O’Maille produced some of Dr Rochford’s records which indicated that, on the 5th June, 1980, the Plaintiff had attended Dr Rochford complaining of eye strain which, it was suggested had persisted for the previous six months and for which the Plaintiff had been seen by an optician and at Jervis Street Hospital. The record suggests that Dr Rochford had also referred the Plaintiff to a Dr Counihan in the Richmond Hospital. The record suggests that Dr Rochford also saw the Plaintiff on the 8th July, 1980 and, on that occasion, had prescribed a tranquilliser and told him to come back. There is nothing in those records to suggest that the Plaintiff ever made any mention to Dr Rochford of having experienced any traumatic events while a member of the defence forces. Indeed, there is no record to suggest that Dr Rochford was told that the Plaintiff had ever been in the army. Insofar as Dr O’Maille, himself, was concerned, his recollection was that, when he saw the Plaintiff early in the 1980’s (he was unable to give a precise date), he was complaining of symptoms of anxiety, stress and nervousness and he presented to him as a tense and nervous person. He said that, while he now knows that the Plaintiff relates that condition to problems which he experienced while a member of the Irish Army in the Lebanon, he was not aware of that, when he saw the Plaintiff in the 1980’s. He did recall, however, that the Plaintiff also had a problem with his eyes. He thought that he had been seen in the eye and ear hospital, where he had been diagnosed as suffering from eye strain, as a result of the sun; apparently, when in the Lebanon. He also understood that Dr Rochford had referred Mr. Knowles to a Dr Counihan in the Richmond Hospital for investigation with regard to headaches of which Mr. Knowles was complaining and that Dr Counihan’s opinion was that he was suffering from tension headaches. Dr O’Maille also said that he understood that Dr Counihan had prescribed an E.E.G. examination but that the Plaintiff did not attend for it. Dr O’Maille said that, so far as he was aware, Dr Rochford had prescribed a tranquilliser for the Plaintiff for the relief of his nervous conditions. It is clear, however, from Dr O’Maille’s evidence that the Plaintiff never mentioned to him that he had been exposed to any frightening experiences while he was in the Lebanon.
21. The Plaintiff, himself, was asked about visiting the Richmond Hospital, and he agreed that he had run out of it. Initially, he said that he had been strapped to a bed, but later on in his evidence he said that he had been asked to sit down, that something was strapped to his arm and something put in his mouth. He became frightened and ran away from the hospital. He said that, in 1990, he saw a Dr McCarthy but that he did not see a psychiatrist until 1995.
22. The Plaintiffs wife, Patricia Knowles, gave evidence that she married the Plaintiff in the year 1982, having first met him in the year 1981. She said, when she first met the Plaintiff, she was 21 years of age and was employed by CIE. When asked what Mr. Knowles’ physical and mental condition was at that time, she replied that “he looked very deep in himself” and, when the specific question was put to her as to whether or not she thought that he was a sick man, her response was “I did not know what to think at first. I was confused.” She elaborated on that by saying that the Plaintiff never really opened up to her and that he never spoke about what had happened to him. However, she said that he looked strong and that she did not know whether or not he was on any medication although she was aware that his mother had taken him to see a Dr in Inchicore; she believed with regard to a kidney infection. She also said that the Plaintiff never talked to her about his fears or thoughts between the time that she first met him and when they got married. She said that the Plaintiff was not working when she married him and that they set up home together in his mother’s house. She said that they moved to Clondalkin, where they presently live, about fifteen years ago. Insofar as the Plaintiff’s experiences in the Lebanon were concerned, the only evidence which Mrs. Knowles gave with regard to what he had told her about those experiences was that he told her that he wanted to come home and that he was not allowed home. She said that she did not know what (if any) treatment the doctor in Inchicore to whom the Plaintiff’s mother had brought him, had prescribed but that she did know that he had seen a Dr. McCarthy, who prescribed medication and she understood that, at that stage, her husband was suffering from depression. In this regard, Dr. Jim McCarthy gave evidence that, while his records were not very clear, he thought that he had first seen the Plaintiff shortly before the year 1990 and by letter dated the 20th of October 1989, he had referred him to Dr. James Corbett, a physciatrist, who wrote to Dr. McCarthy on the 20th of November 1989 with reference to the Plaintiff and who also saw the Plaintiff in the Summer of 1997 at the behest of the Chief State Solicitor (apparently, Dr. Corbett had forgotten that he had seen the Plaintiff in his own interest in November 1989 when he had agreed to examine him on behalf of the State in 1997) and furnished two reports on him dated respectively the 16th of February 1999 and the 29th April 1999. Both Dr. Corbett’s letter to Dr. McCarthy of the 20th of November 1989 and his reports of the 16th of February 1999 and the 29th April 1999 to the Chief State Solicitor were given to me . In this regard, it seems to me that Dr. Corbett’s letter of the 20th of November 1989 bears out Dr. McCarthy’s evidence that he would have first attended the Plaintiff in late 1989. In any event, Mrs. Knowles described the Plaintiff during the 1980’s as bedwetting, anxious and always on the go. She said that he could not sit down, as she might do to watch a film or something and that, indeed, he had always been like that since she first knew him. She said that, since they were married, the Plaintiff had always wet his bed and, in the course of her direct examination, she told me that she did not know that he used to wet his bed before she married him. However, in the course of her cross examination, Mrs. Knowles told me that she did know that her husband wet his bed before she married him.
23. Mrs. Knowles said that, throughout their married life, the Plaintiff never had a job. When asked what he was like today, she said that he was depressed, that he did not get out of the bed until 2 o’clock p.m. and that, while he might do a little bit of tidying around the house, generally speaking, he just sat around although, from time to time, he might go out for a walk with her. She said that he had no interest in television and that he had no friends and, when asked again about the Plaintiff’s bedwetting habit, she said that he would wet the bed once a week. She said that she and her husband did not have a sexual relationship but that she loved him very much.
24. Under cross examination, Mrs. Knowles said that, nowadays, her husband was much the same as when she had first met him which she described as “very distraught”. She said that she had been going out with the Plaintiff for about eight months before they were married and that, previously, she had had a relationship with another man for about three years whom she described as, outgoing, bubbly, like herself but she said that that relationship ended when that man went off with another girl. She reiterated that, before she was married, the Plaintiff had told her that he had been in the Army but did not say anything about the Lebanon or, indeed, about any of his Army experiences. In particular, he never suggested to her that he was bullied or spat at when he was in the Army. However, it appears that, after they were married, the Plaintiff told Mrs. Knowles about his having volunteered to go to the Lebanon and that he could not stand it, and that, despite begging people to send him home, they would not send him home. Moreover, as I interpreted Mrs. Knowles evidence, she was never told by her husband of any traumatic experiences which he said that he had had while in the Lebanon. She said that, before she married her husband, he always looked very tired but that it was not until after they were married that she learned that he was depressed and that Dr. McCarthy had confirmed to her that her husband was suffering from bad depression and that he had prescribed medication for him which he thought would help. Subsequently, Dr. McCarthy told her that he had decided to refer Mr. Knowles to a psychiatrist.
25. In addition to Dr. O’Maille, whose evidence I heard, Dr. Rochford, to whose records I was referred, and whatever Doctors the Plaintiff saw when, apparently, he attended Jervis Street Hospital, the Eye and Ear Hospital and the Richmond Hospital during the 1980’s (seemingly, one of those Doctors was a Dr. Counihan), as I have already indicated, he attended Dr. Jim McCarthy, who gave evidence before me, and Dr. James Corbett, who also gave evidence and who both wrote to Dr. McCarthy about Mr. Knowles and furnished reports on him to the Chief State Solicitor. In this regard, although, in his letter to Dr. McCarthy of the 20th of November 1989, Dr. Corbett said that the Plaintiff had presented to him with symptoms of anxiety and depression which the Plaintiff attributed to his retirement from the army some ten years previously, it is, I think, very significant that the Plaintiff’s explanation for the onset of those symptoms, while he was in the Lebanon was homesickness, rather than exposure to any traumatic events. Certainly, when Dr. Corbett saw the Plaintiff in 1997, the Plaintiff had told him about traumatic events which he said had occurred while he was in the Lebanon but, at that stage, the proceedings herein were in being. Insofar as Dr. McCarthy is concerned, he said that, when he first saw the Plaintiff, he presented with symptoms of anxiety, nervousness and agitation and he claimed that he had difficulty sleeping. To a lessor extent, Dr. McCarthy said the Plaintiff manifested symptoms of depression. As to the cause of those problems, Dr. McCarthy gave evidence that the Plaintiff had told him that he had been in the Lebanon and that, after that, he had become nervy and anxious and, curiously enough, it appears from a report submitted by Dr. McCarthy on the 14th of September 1995 that the Plaintiff had told him that he came home prematurely from the Lebanon. In response to a specific question as to whether or not Mr. Knowles had given him a detailed history of his past, Dr. McCarthy said that it was not until the mid 1990’s that the Plaintiff had referred to traumatic episodes which he maintained had occurred in the Lebanon.
26. Dr. Corbett gave evidence that, on the occasion on which he saw the Plaintiff in November, 1989 the Plaintiff had told him that, when he was in the Lebanon, he had been afraid but, at that stage, Mr. Knowles does not appear to have elaborated upon that allegation although Dr. Corbett said that, if it were a fact that the Plaintiff had been exposed to significant incidents in the Lebanon which had frightened him, he would have expected the Plaintiff to have told him about them because, it he did not, Dr. Corbett concluded that those incidents would not have been uppermost in the Plaintiff’s mind as the cause of his problems. He added that re-experiencing traumatic incidents is a symptom of post-traumatic stress disorder and that, therefore, if the Plaintiff’s problems were due to events in the Lebanon, he would have expected the Plaintiff to have told him about them in the year 1989. In this regard, Dr. Corbett said that the truth of what a patient tells a psychiatrist is very important to enable the psychiatrist to make a proper diagnosis; it being a vital tool in the psychiatrist’s equipment.
27. Dr. Corbett also said that, when he saw the Plaintiff in 1989, he diagnosed that the Plaintiff was then suffering from a depressive illness and, as a result of what the Plaintiff had told him, he concluded that he had suffered a mixed anxiety depressive disorder in the Lebanon which resolved before he left the army but that, following his discharge from the army, he had developed an adjustment disorder. Dr. Corbett said that, it was his view that, when he saw the Plaintiff in 1989, the traumatic incidents in the Lebanon of which he is now complaining could not have been uppermost in his mind as the cause of his problems and Dr. Corbett speculated that, at that stage, the problem which most concerned the Plaintiff must have been difficulty within his marriage. In this regard, Dr. Corbett said that a symptom of post-traumatic stress disorder is re-experiencing the traumatic incident which precipitated it and, therefore, if the problems which the Plaintiff was experiencing in 1989 were due to events which had occurred in the Lebanon, he would have expected that the Plaintiff would have told him about them.
28. With regard to the fact that, following his discharge from the Regional Aid Post in the Lebanon, the Plaintiff was billeted with a friend, Dr. Corbett expressed the view that if, while in the Regional Aid Post, he had been suffering from homesickness, it was a good idea to billet him with a friend. However he also said that, if he was suffering from a psychiatric illness, it would be a good idea to billet him with a friend.
29. Dr. Corbett did not accept that the Plaintiff is now suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder although he agreed that that condition is a subjective problem. He also said that the symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder and anxiety depression are similar but that, if a person suffers from either condition, it would be recognised by a properly qualified doctor who had subjected such a person to a detailed medical examination.
30. I then heard evidence from Dr. Ian Daly, a consultant Psychiatrist, who appears to be the Director of the Clondalkin Mental Health Services. Dr. Daly said that Mr. Knowles first presented to the Health Services, having been referred by Dr. McCarthy, in February 1995 when he was then seen by his (Dr. Daly’s) Registrar, Dr. Paul McCormack but that the, himself, did not see Mr. Knowles until sometime in the year 1996. He said that Mr. Knowles presented with mild depression and anxiety and was preoccupied with thoughts of bitterness against the army in respect in what he perceived to be the unsympathetic treatment which he had received at their hands while serving in the Lebanon. As Dr. Daly said “he was very angry, very bitter and had very low self esteem”. Dr. Daly then gave evidence that the plaintiff had described to him the traumatic incidents which Mr. Knowles had said that he had experienced when in the Lebanon and how those incidents had affected him. Indeed, it seems to me that the accounts of those incidents which Mr.Knowles gave to Dr. Daly were even more graphic than what he told me in the witness box. For example, with regard to the incident on the beach, Mr. Knowles seems to have told Dr. Daly that the people who frightened him had pulled at his uniform, had requested him to give over his gun and had thrown bottles in the air. He never told me any of those things and he did not tell Dr. Daly that the people on the beach were firing guns. That as it may be, however, Dr. Daly appears to have been the first and the only person, since the Plaintiff was in the Lebanon in 1978, to have been told of the traumatic experiences to which the Plaintiff maintains that he was exposed while he was there and which caused him so much fright. Dr Daly was then referred to the medical records relating to the Plaintiff’s stay in the Lebanon and the evidence which the Plaintiff, himself and some of his colleagues had given with regard to how he behaved and how he presented after he had been transferred to Head Quarters Company. Dr Daly was also told of the Plaintiff’s alleged experiences at the hands of his fellow soldiers, following his return home from the Lebanon. In this regard, I have to admit, somewhat to my surprise, Dr Daly said that the fact that the Plaintiff had not mentioned the incidents, which are alleged to have precipitated his psychiatric problems, to anyone from the time that they occurred in 1978 until the time that he saw Dr Daly in 1996 is not significant. That view seems to me to defy logic. I cannot understand why, if a person is traumatised by a particular event to the extent that he or she suffers psychological damage as a result of it, that event is not going to prey on their mind for so long as the psychological damage persists. At the same time, I note that, despite his view that the Plaintiff’s failure to mention the incidents which are alleged to have traumatised him in 1978 until he saw Dr. Daly in 1996 is not significant, Dr. Daly thought that, given the period of time which has elapsed since those incidents are alleged to have occurred, it is difficult to relate the Plaintiffs psychiatric symptoms to those incidents. He said that, while the traumatic incidents may have been the precipitating cause of the psychiatric symptoms which the Plaintiff developed, he would not expect them to be to the forefront of his mind after he left the army and neither did he think that the symptoms were a post traumatic stress type of disorder. In Dr Daly’s view, the Plaintiff suffered from Chronic Anxiety and his preoccupation, after the traumatic incidents which he described had occurred, was more related to bitterness and anger which he felt as the result of the treatment which he maintained that he had received at the hands of the army, including the rank and file, rather than the incidents themselves. Furthermore, he said that the fact that the Plaintiff was bedwetting indicated a more severe degree of decompensation than mere homesickness. However, Dr Daly was ambivalent as to whether or not Mr Knowles should have been sent home from the Lebanon. At the same time, as I interpreted Dr Daly’s evidence, while it is his view that the symptoms with which the Plaintiff presented when he was admitted to the aid post in the Lebanon indicated that he was suffering from more than homesickness, he would not have expected the doctors in the Lebanon, who would be the equivalent of General Practitioners, to have recognised that fact. Neither would he commit himself as to whether or not, at that time, it was appropriate that the Plaintiff should have been referred for psychiatric assessment. However, he did say that if, after his discharge from the aid post, the symptoms which had necessitated the Plaintiff’s admission had recurred, then he should have been carefully reassessed and monitored but, even then, Dr Daly was not prepared to say that the Plaintiff should have been sent home although he was very clear that, if Mr Knowles had been effectively treated at an early stage, there is every likelihood that he would have responded. However, he reiterated that he does not diagnose the Plaintiff as suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder. Rather, is he suffering from Chronic Anxiety.
31. Under cross examination, Dr Daly said that the Plaintiff’s veracity was an essential ingredient for diagnosing his problems. Moreover, in the context of the fact that the Plaintiff had been given an inoculation against Hepatitis in October 1978, Dr Daly thought that, if, at that time, the Plaintiff had presented to the doctor concerned in the manner in which he, himself, and some of his colleagues had said that he presented after the incidents of which he complains, that that fact should have been noted and recorded by that doctor. Furthermore, if, when he was examined by Colonel Joyce prior to his discharge from the army, that condition was manifest, it was Dr Daly’s view that Colonel Joyce would have been negligent to have given him an A1 medical grade.
32. Dr. Miriam Moore, a clinical psychologist with twenty five years experience but without medical qualifications, saw the Plaintiff in the month of June, 1995 and, in the course of an interview which lasted some hours, she administered tests to the Plaintiff, as a result of which she concluded that he was suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder referable to alleged life threatening incidents to which he had been exposed in the Lebanon in the year 1978. Dr. Moore agreed that post-traumatic stress disorder was not recognised as such at that time but she maintained that the army authorities were then aware of psychological trauma resulting from shell shock or battle fatigue and, accordingly, were familiar with the symptoms of psychological trauma and should recognise them when they manifested themselves in a soldier. In this regard, Dr. Moore said that she had made a special study of post-traumatic stress disorder at the behest of a Major General Vincent Savino of the Veterans Association and, in that context, it was her experience that soldiers suffering from psychological trauma had a tendency to avoid talking about the incidents which precipitated the condition. Dr. Moore said that, in her view, in the light of what Mr. Knowles had told her, it was extraordinary that the doctors in the Lebanon had not recognised that the Plaintiff was suffering psychological trauma and that, as she put it “homesickness was an imaginative diagnosis”. She said that, in her view, the army’s treatment of the Plaintiff, both in the Lebanon and afterwards, was unreasonable and irresponsible, that following his original presentation in the Regional Aid Post, his progress should have been followed up and he should have been sent home. Moreover, she said that it was most irresponsible and outrageous to record that the Plaintiff’s depression was fully resolved before he was discharged from the army. In this regard, however, as I interpreted her evidence, Dr. Moore’s opinion was based on the assumption that the Plaintiff presented to his superiors, and to Army Doctors both in the Lebanon and on his return home, in the condition in which he, himself, had described in evidence, which, to some extent, was corroborated by his colleagues Messrs McNamara, Harris and Deveraux.
33. Under cross-examination, Dr. Moore said that the Plaintiff should have been referred to a psychiatrist. However, she also said that anyone in their right mind suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder, as the Plaintiff did, would not undergo that sort of suffering without seeking help. She also said that persons suffering from that condition were often confused. In this regard, it seems to me that Dr. Moore’s views were influenced by a perception that a majority of soldiers suffer post-traumatic stress disorder when on overseas duty; a perception which, in my view, does not accord with the evidence which I heard. However, she also said that it is difficult not to recognise symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder but that, without symptoms, the condition cannot be diagnosed. I concluded from that piece of evidence that, when he was examined by Colonel Joyce prior to his discharge from the army, the Plaintiff would have had to have presented symptom free to justify the Colonel’s certificate that his army medical grade was A.1. Otherwise the conclusion would have to be that the Colonel ignored the Plaintiff’s presenting symptoms which, in my view, is extremely unlikely.
34. Dr. Peter Fahy, a Consultant Psychiatrist, gave evidence that he first saw the Plaintiff in the month of April, 1996 and that he has seen him many times since then. He said that the Plaintiff had been referred to him by his Solicitor and that, at that time, he had been furnished with a report on the Plaintiff from Dr. Miriam Moore with whose opinion with regard to the Plaintiff he agreed. Dr. Fahy told me that the Plaintiff had described to him certain traumatic events to which he alleged that he had been exposed while in the Lebanon in the year 1978 and I have to say that, to my mind, the description of those events which the Plaintiff gave to Dr Fahy was somewhat different from that which he gave to Dr Corbett, to Dr. Daly, to Dr Moore and, indeed, to what he said in the witness box. However, that as it may be. In the light of what the Plaintiff had told him about his experiences while he was in the Lebanon and in the light of the medical records relating to the Plaintiff while he was in the Lebanon, Dr. Fahy concluded that a diagnosis that the Plaintiff was then suffering from home sickness was inappropriate. In his view, given what the Plaintiff had told him and, in particular, having regard to the Plaintiff’s description of how he had been after he had been discharged from the Regional Aid Post; a description which Dr. Fahy considered had been corroborated by the Plaintiff’s colleagues, it was Dr. Fahy’s opinion that, at the material time, the Plaintiff was a very frightened man and was suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder arising from fear, whether real or perceived. He described the Plaintiff as “a stable young man who was de-established by his experiences in the Lebanon and that home sickness alone would not account for that”. In his view, the problems which necessitated Mr. Knowles’ detention in the Regional Aid Post were serious ones and that he should have been sent home. Indeed, Dr. Fahy suggested that a Dr “trained in the management of these cases” should have been flown out from Ireland to treat the Plaintiff but that, in any event, he should have been removed from the environment in which his problems arose. In this regard, it seems to me that, like Dr. Moore, Dr. Fahy’s views were dependent upon an acceptance of the fact, that, after his discharge from the Regional Aid Post, Mr. Knowles had presented in the manner in which he, himself, and some of his colleagues had described it. Dr. Fahy said that, if the Plaintiff had been treated properly at that time, the likelihood is that his symptoms would have been alleviated and that there was a very good chance that he would have made a full recovery. However, the fact of the matter is that, in Dr. Fahy’s view, the treatment which the Plaintiff received in the Lebanon and after he returned home from the Lebanon was inadequate, although he did accept that it was quite easy to fail to diagnose depression unless one was an expert in that field; in other words, unless one was a psychiatrist.
35. Under cross-examination, Dr. Fahy confirmed that it was his opinion that Mr. Knowles is suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder and depression and he said that, in his opinion, the Plaintiff’s credibility was not a significant factor in arriving at that diagnosis because people with the post-traumatic stress disorder do not realise how ill they are. When asked about the Plaintiff’s bedwetting problem, Dr. Fahy said that he had understood from the Plaintiff that that problem had cleared up.
36. Professor Patricia Casey, who gave evidence on behalf of the defence, said that she was a Professor of Psychiatry at U.C.D. and that she had examined the Plaintiff on two occasions, in the months of May and September of 1999. Professor Casey gave it as her opinion, that, when a psychiatrist is assessing a patient, the veracity of the patient is essential to making a proper diagnosis because the only tool which a psychiatrist has in order to make a diagnosis of what the patient, or the patient’s family, tells him or her and in this regard, Professor Casey said that, in addition to interviewing the Plaintiff, she had also interviewed his wife and his sister. Professor Casey emphatically rejected Dr. Fahy’s suggestion that, when a psychiatrist is making a diagnosis with regard to someone who may have psychological problems, the patient’s honesty does not matter. To my mind, Dr. Fahy's view in that regard does not make sense and, accordingly, I prefer Professor Casey’s views. Professor Casey also gave evidence that a person suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder is usually able to give a very clear and concise history of the events which provoked the problem and she said that it is accepted in medical circles that to provoke a condition of post-traumatic stress disorder, the traumatic event must be outside the range of normal experience. Indeed, she referred to a publication entitled “International Classification of Diseases” published by the World Health Organisation in which it is stated that post-traumatic stress disorder is a response to a stressful event “of an exceptionally threatening or catastrophic nature”. Nevertheless, Professor Casey conceded that, perhaps, there was an element of truth in the suggestion that post-traumatic stress can result from perception rather than actuality. In other words, that an event which one person might perceive to be innocuous could be perceived by another to be traumatic. However, as I interpreted Professor Casey, her view was that that would be the exception to the rule.
37. Professor Casey said that Mr. Knowles’ description of the traumatic events to which he said that he had been exposed in the Lebanon was very vague and, in this regard, it seems to me that what he appears to have told Professor Casey is somewhat different from what he told others. For example, he appears to have told Professor Casey that a local male person in the Lebanon wanted to have sex with him and that was the first and only occasion on which I heard that suggestion. In any event, Professor Casey said that it was impossible for her to make a definitive diagnosis of what was wrong with the Plaintiff because he was so vague. Indeed, she thought that the Plaintiff was being deliberately evasive with her, although she was satisfied that he was not suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder, while she agreed that he did not present himself as a very well man. At the same time, she felt that the Plaintiff was malingering which she described as a factitous disorder. She added that, if the Plaintiff suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder as result of his experiences in the Lebanon, she considered it very unlikely that he would have been able to sustain a relationship, have a courtship and get married, as the Plaintiff had done.
38. Under cross examination, Professor Casey accepted that the Plaintiff is now, and at the time that she interviewed him, pscyhiatrically unwell. She recounted how the Plaintiff had brought to the interview a broken statue and a torn holy picture; she thought for the purpose of trying to impress her as to how aggressive he had become in his home. She was of this view because Mr. Knowles had told her that he had damaged the two items in question in a fit of aggression towards his wife and, apparently, was suggesting that that aggression resulted from the events which he had experienced in the Lebanon back in 1978.
39. Insofar as the Plaintiffs period in the Regional Aid Post in the Lebanon was concerned, Professor Casey disagreed with the diagnosis that he had been suffering from reactive depression at that time because, as she said, a depressive illness takes a minimum of three weeks to respond to anti depressant therapy whereas the record shows that the Plaintiff was fit to be discharged from the Regional Aid Post within a period of six days. That, Professor Casey said, was inconsistent with a condition of reactive depression but it would be consistent with a condition known as adjustment disorder. Furthermore, Professor Casey said that missing home, sleeplessness and bed wetting, on their own, do not constitute a depressive illness but would be consistent with homesickness, loneliness and upset. Professor Casey also said that the symptoms which Noel MacNamara said that the Plaintiff had manifested when he (the Plaintiff) was billeted with Mr. MacNamara; that is, nervousness, shaking, sleeplessness, crying and wanting to go home, are all symptoms of loneliness, rather than depression. However, Professor Casey did concede that, if those symptoms were manifest over a long period of time, the Plaintiff should have been sent home.
40. Professor Casey gave evidence that anti depressants are a standard treatment for bedwetting in children and that homesickness can cause bedwetting. She added, by the way, that the Plaintiff never told her that he suffered from bedwetting. She did not accept that the allegedly traumatic events described by the Plaintiff were serious enough to cause post- traumatic stress disorder and that, while perception is an element in causing such a disorder, a mild event cannot cause it. It must, Professor Casey said, be a major event. However, when pressed strongly by Counsel for the Plaintiff, Professor Casey eventually conceded that the type of event described by Mr. Knowles when he allegedly was filling sand bags on a beach could, if it produced a response of bedwetting, pains in the head and headaches, as the Plaintiff alleged, lead to post-traumatic stress disorder but not to reactive depression. However, as far as she was concerned, she preferred the diagnosis that the Plaintiff had suffered an adjustment reaction. Nevertheless, she said that, if everything that the Plaintiff and his colleagues had said were true, the Plaintiff should have been sent home.
41. Professor Casey said that, if the Plaintiff was suffering from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, while in the Lebanon and thereafter, it would be very difficult for a doctor, conducting a medical examination of him, to fail to diagnose that fact and it is clear that such a diagnosis was not made because, although the Plaintiff was seen by a number of doctors in the late 1970’s and during the 1980’s, it was many years before he was referred to a psychiatrist and, indeed, the first psychiatrist who saw him; Dr. Corbett in November 1989, did not diagnose that condition. In any event, so far as she was concerned, Dr. Casey was satisfied the Plaintiff did not and does not now suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder.
42. As I have already indicated, the Plaintiff’s claim herein is based on the proposition that, while a serving soldier in the Lebanon in the year 1978, he was exposed to traumatic events as a the result of which he developed psychological and psychiatric problems; the symptoms of which were manifest and obvious; so much so, that they ought to have been recognised as such by the army authorities and, in particular, by the army medical corps who should, thereupon, have initiated an appropriate regime of treatment for the Plaintiff. In that context, I have gone to the trouble of reviewing the evidence which I heard in the course of the trial of this action in considerable detail because I thought it necessary to do so in order to highlight what I perceive to be some very remarkable features of this case: given the basis upon which it is founded. First and foremost, although the Plaintiff purports to attribute all the psychological problems which he has suffered since the year 1978 to traumatic events to which he says that he was exposed while a serving soldier in the Lebanon at that time, apart from the fact that there is only the Plaintiff’s word for it that those events ever occurred; there being no corroborative evidence whatsoever to support his testimony, it appears that he never mentioned those events to anyone; not to his army colleagues in the Lebanon, or back home in Ireland, not to the army doctors, who he attended in the Lebanon or back home in Ireland, not to the myriad of doctors, who he attended in the 1980’s and not even to his wife who he married in the year1981. In fact, it seems that the first person to whom Mr. Knowles related those traumatic experiences was Dr. Ian Daly, who first saw him in the year 1996. If, as is suggested on behalf of the Plaintiff, his problems are traumatic in origin, I am astonished that he never mentioned that trauma to anyone for nearly twenty years. In this connection, while, as I have already indicated, I had evidence from Dr. Ian Daly that the fact that over the years the Plaintiff had not mentioned the traumatic incidents to which he alleged that he had been exposed was not significant; a view which I question, and Dr. Miriam Moore expressed a similar view, Dr. James Corbett gave it as his opinion that, if the problems which the Plaintiff was experiencing when he first saw him in 1989 were attributable to events which had occurred in the Lebanon, he would have expected the Plaintiff to have told him about those events and Professor Casey’s evidence was to the effect that a person suffering from post traumatic trauma usually gave a clear and concise history of the event which provoked the problem. As I have already indicated, apart from the medical evidence, it seems to me to defy logic that, if a person is traumatised by a particular event to the extent that that event gives rise to psychological damage, that event would not prey on the victim’s mind to the extent that he would recall it on any occasion on which his psychological problems are being investigated. Accordingly, in the light of the views in that regard of Dr. Corbett and Professor Casey, which I prefer to those of Dr. Daly and Dr. Moore and, in any event, because it seems to me to make sense, I have to conclude that the only reason that the Plaintiff failed to tell anyone about the traumatic events to which he says that he was exposed in the Lebanon in the year 1978 until he saw Dr. Daly in 1996 is that those events never occurred. Moreover, I think that that conclusion is supported by the uncontradicted evidence of Mr. Michael O’Connor, who was emphatic; firstly, that the Plaintiff had never been on a beach in the Lebanon prior to his admission to the Regional Aid Post on the 25th June 1978 and, secondly, that no soldier would ever be on his own when on duty at an outpost. In arriving at this conclusion, I would emphasise that it does not follow that I believe that the Plaintiff has told deliberate lies about the traumatic experiences to which he alleges that he was exposed when he was in the Lebanon. In this regard, as I have already indicated, I am satisfied; both from my own observation of him and from the medical evidence which I heard, that Christopher Knowles is not a well person. Clearly, for whatever reason, he has ongoing psychological problems and, it seems to me that, as a result, he is a very confused man. In Those circumstances, while I do not believe that they ever happened, I am satisfied that the Plaintiff has persuaded himself that the traumatic events in the Lebanon of which he complains actually occurred and that they are as real to him as if they had actually happened. | Although, as I have indicated, I am not persuaded that the Plaintiff was exposed to the traumatic events in the Lebanon which he described in evidence and which he recounted to his and to the Defendant’s doctors, it does not necessarily follow that his claim herein is doomed to failure. In this regard, it seems to me that if, while he was a serving soldier in the Lebanon, the Plaintiff, for whatever reason, manifested severe psychological or psychiatric problems which ought to have been recognised as such by his superiors and/or by the army medical corps to the extent that it was obvious that he required medical treatment, I think that the army were under an obligation to arrange for such treatment and that their failure to do so would, in the event that it could be established that that failure compounded the Plaintiff’s problems, amount to negligence in respect of which the Plaintiff would be entitled to compensation. However, to that end it would be necessary for the Plaintiff to establish that the psychological problems which he manifested were readily recognisable as such.
43. This brings me to another feature of the evidence which I heard which I consider to be remarkable. The Plaintiff gave evidence that, following his discharge from the Regional Aid Post in June of 1978 and his attachment to the Headquarters Company, his health deteriorated to the extent that he was drained out, confused, walking around in a daze, frightened and not knowing what he was doing. He said that the people must have noticed this; particularly as those problems persisted for the balance of the time that he spent in the Lebanon and, indeed, the balance of the period which he spent in the army following his return home from the Lebanon. There was support for this evidence from Mr. Michael Harris who, in the course of his testimony, described the Plaintiff as being very nervous, very shaky and physically drained and someone with whom he would not be very comfortable going out on a mission because he looked unsteady and lacking in confidence, from Mr. Christopher McNamara who said that the Plaintiff appeared to him to be very nervous and shaken, that his eyes flickered, that he was unable to sleep, that he was accustomed to walking around crying saying that he wanted to got home, that he could not put pen to paper; so much so that Mr. McNamara had to write to his mother for him and from Mr. Nicholas Deveraux, who described the Plaintiff as being very nervous, very erratic, lacking in confidence, having no sense of direction and to all outward appearances someone who had “cracked up”. However, notwithstanding that evidence, it is a remarkable fact that, although I learnt that, following the Plaintiff’s discharge from the Regional Aid Post in June of 1978 and up to the time that he was discharged from the army in June of 1979, the Plaintiff had been seen by three army doctors; on the 2nd September, 1978 by Doctor David Morgan for the purpose of having an inoculation against Hepatitis A, on the 25th October, 1978 by another army doctor, a Captain Baines, who subjected him to a medical examination the purpose of determining whether or not Mr. Knowles had any medical condition which required treatment or whether he was suffering from any unresolved medical problems which might require further attention following his return home from the Lebanon and on the 5th June, 1979 by a Colonel Joyce, who was described as being a very experienced doctor and a “very good clinician” who examined the Plaintiff for the purpose of determining whether or not he had any medical condition which required treatment before he was discharged from the defence forces. Yet, no one of those three doctors recorded that, on any one of those three occasions, did the Plaintiff manifest any of the symptoms described by himself and by Messrs Harris, McNamara and Deveraux. On the contrary, on the 25th October, 1978 Captain Baines certified him as being fit for repatriation and on the 5th June, 1979, Colonel Joyce certified that Mr. Knowles had recovered fully from his depression and that his army medical grade was A.1. In this regard, Doctor Corbett gave evidence that the symptoms which the Plaintiff and his colleagues said that Mr. Knowles had manifested while in the Lebanon would be recognised by a properly qualified doctor, who had to subject the Plaintiff to a detailed medical examination; a view which was specifically endorsed by Doctor Daly and by Professor Casey and, as I interpreted her evidence, a view with which Doctor Miriam Moore did not dissent. Accordingly, I must conclude that, when Mr. Knowles presented himself for inoculation by Doctor Morgan on the 2nd September, 1978, for examination by Captain Baines on the 25th October, 1978 and for examination by Colonel Joyce on the 5th June 1979; either he did not present with the symptoms which he, himself, suggested that he had manifested following his discharge from the Regional Aid Post in 1978 and which his colleagues, Messrs Harris, McNamara and Deveraux had corroborated or that he did manifest those symptoms and that Doctor Morgan, Captains Baines and Colonel Joyce deliberately suppressed that fact in the sense that they did not record those symptoms in the Plaintiff’s medical records. Assuming that, when he was in the Lebanon and, after he had been discharged from the Regional Aid Post, the Plaintiff was manifesting the symptoms which he and his colleagues have described, I think it is extremely unlikely that they would have gone unnoticed by Doctor Morgan, when he saw the Plaintiff on the 2nd September, 1978 or by Captain Baines, when he examined the Plaintiff on the 25th October, 1978, and, while one or other of them might, conceivably, have overlooked to record those symptoms in the Plaintiff’s L.30 I think it extremely unlikely that both of them would have omitted to make that record unless, of course, that one or other of them deliberately refrained from doing so which, in the absence of any evidence to support that proposition, I cannot accept. Moreover, if Mr. Knowles was beset with the problems which he said that he was experiencing during the latter months of his service with the defence forces and that he presented and behaved in a manner which reflected those problems, I think that it is inconceivable that Colonel Joyce would not have recognised that fact when he examined Mr. Knowles prior to his discharge from the army on the 5th June 1979; particularly, as Doctor Morgan said and I accept that Colonel Joyce would not have certified that Mr. Knowles had fully recovered from his depressive illness unless his examination on that occasion had included an assessment of his psychiatric condition. Furthermore, I think that it is inconceivable that Colonel Joyce would have recorded that Mr. Knowles had an army medical grade of A.1. if, on that occasion, he had manifested the problems from which he, himself, said that he was suffering at the time. Again, of course, it is theoretically possibly that Colonel Joyce suppressed the fact that, on the occasion of that examination, the Plaintiff was manifesting psychiatric problems and, in effect, forged the record. However, I think that that is such a far fetched proposition that it does not deserved any, much less serious, consideration.
44. Having regard to the foregoing, it seems to me that I must choose between accepting the evidence of the Plaintiff and his colleagues, Messrs Harris, McNamara and Deveraux with regard to how the Plaintiff presented and behaved following his discharge from the Regional Aid Post in June of 1978 and the medical records which came into existence following the examinations of the Plaintiff by Dr. Morgan in September, 1978, by Captain Baines in October, 1978 and by Colonel Joyce in June of 1979; the implications of those records being that, on the occasion of each of those examinations, the Plaintiff presented as a normal person. In my view, the implications of that evidence and of those records cannot co-exist. That being so, it seems to me that I must prefer the records because I consider that it is much more likely that the recollections of the Plaintiff and his colleagues is faulty than it is that the contemporaneous records of three Doctors belies the reality of the Plaintiff’s medical condition . In any event, as I indicated from the outset, while I do not doubt his honesty, I consider that the Plaintiff was a totally unreliable witness.
45. In those circumstances, I have to conclude that, if, while he was a serving soldier in the Lebanon and during the period following his return from the Lebanon to before he was discharged from the army, the plaintiff was suffering from psychological and psychiatric problems, the symptoms thereof were not so obvious that they ought to have been recognised as such by the Army authorities and, in particular, by the Army Medical Corps and, accordingly, the Defendants could not reasonably be expected to arrange for psychiatric or other appropriate treatment for the Plaintiff at that time.
46. Given that I am not satisfied that, at the material time, the plaintiff was manifesting symptoms of psychological and psychiatric problems to the extent that they ought to have been recognised as such by the defendants and treated accordingly, I do not think it necessary that I should decide whether or not Mr. Knowles had any psychiatric problems at that time. Whether or not he had is, I think, irrelevant because, as I have indicated, I am not satisfied he manifested any such problems to the extent that they ought to have been recognised as such by the Defendants.
47. For the sake of completeness and given that much emphasis was laid by Counsel for the Plaintiff on the implications of the records relating to the Plaintiff’s admission to the Regional Aid Post in the Lebanon in the month of June, 1978, the records relating to the period of his detention therein and the records relating to his discharge therefrom; the contention being that those records demonstrate that the Plaintiff was then suffering from psychiatric problems which were recognised as such; not only by the doctors who treated him at that time, but also by his commanding officer, Col. Wright, I think that I should indicate how I interpret those records. In that regard, it seems to me that, despite the views to the contrary expressed by Drs. Daly, Fahy, and Moore, those records, when read in conjunction with the evidence of Col. Wright, of Dr. David Morgan and of Mr. Michael O’Connor all point to the fact that the Plaintiff’s besetting problem at the time was homesickness. That is the implication of the record of the 25th June, 1978 in his L. A. 30 which records that he was then suffering from “Depression - Re-active to home separation”. That is the implication of the entry in the medical case sheet (A. F. 177) referred to by Dr. Morgan which records that the Plaintiff “cannot settle in, worries about mother and sister at home all the time” and that is the implication of the undated letter seeking repatriation which the Plaintiff acknowledged that he wrote to Col. Wright at the time in which he said (inter alia)
“I am worried about my mother. I know she is not well. I tried very hard to settle in but I can’t help worrying about her. My father is dead. My mother lives on her own and she is 62 years old. Sir! I am sorry for the hassle I cause but I can’t help it. I have a lot of home problems and it is difficult for me Sir”.
48. In addition to those records, Col. Wright, Dr. Morgan and Mr. O’Connor all expressed the opinion that, at that time, Mr. Knowles was suffering from homesickness and, indeed, his friends Christopher McNamara and Michael Harris both gave evidence that the Plaintiff indicated to them that he was homesick. I think it also of great significance that the only complaint which the Plaintiff appears to have made to his wife with regard to the time that he spent in the Lebanon was that he had requested to be allowed to go home and that that request had been refused and it is also noteworthy that when he saw Dr. Corbett in November, 1989, he attributed the problems which he experienced in the Lebanon to homesickness. In all those circumstances, given that Prof. Casey was of the view that all of the symptoms which Mr. Knowles is alleged to have suffered while he was in the Lebanon could be attributed to loneliness and I do not think that the Defendants can be faulted for the treatment which was afforded to him at that time.
49. In all the foregoing circumstances, I do not think that the Plaintiff has established his claim herein and, accordingly it is hereby dismissed.