High Court of Justice in Northern Ireland Queen's Bench Division Decisions

"… Everybody thinks here's this great guy, he is doing all these brilliant things, couldn't work with a better guy, but it wasn't the same guy who came home to me."

She described the lowest point in their relationship as being subsequent to the birth of their second son when her husband was so depressed that he would regularly sit on the floor at the foot of the bed at night uncontrollably weeping. She recalled an occasion when her husband confessed to her that he was in such despair that he had gone out one night and seriously thought about killing himself to the extent of placing his gun in his mouth. At this point Mrs A recounted how she had told her husband that if he felt so bad he should leave the family for a period and do whatever he needed to do in order to deal with his problems. She said that she told him that if he came back it would be brilliant but if he didn't come back at least he wouldn't be dead and the only condition she imposed was that, from time to time, he let his family know how he was. That was a powerful piece of evidence from an impressive witness.

"It was clear and it wasn't clear. I have to be honest and say I did not know what to do. I didn't know, I wanted to run away. I wanted to run away from it really and leave it and think gosh let this be somebody else's life, let this not be my life."

The OHU

"After the incident a male nurse called at my home on one occasion only."

In the statement prepared for the purpose of the litigation the plaintiff confirmed that he had been contacted on 18 March 1993 but, according to the plaintiff, Joe McCloskey did not have much to say apart from the fact that it was often up to him to recommend that police officers had their personal firearms taken from them. He said that Mr McCloskey advised him that they way he was feeling was very normal for what he had been through and he reviewed him on a number of occasions. The plaintiff felt that Mr McCloskey seemed to care about how he was feeling but that he did not delve into the trauma and the reasons behind his psychological symptoms. The plaintiff told Dr Turner that the male nurse "did not help". In evidence, while he was prepared to accept that Mr McCloskey had tried his "damndest" to help him, the plaintiff maintained that there had not been much discussion regarding his emotional symptoms other than Mr McCloskey observing that what he was suffering was "normal from getting a beating" and he repeated that Mr McCloskey did not delve any deeper. According to the plaintiff, he was somewhat surprised when Mr McCloskey told him that one of his duties, from time to time, was to recommend to the authorities whether an officer should have his personal firearm removed. The plaintiff also expressed the view that, perhaps through ignorance, Mr McCloskey thought that he had merely been suffering from shock as a consequence of the beating.

"I suppose I knew that as a psychologist he could have been someone who gave me treatment. However my thoughts were that the main reason I was going to see Dr Poole was to make sure that I was fit to be a policeman and to carry a gun. I felt that this was a test to be passed and if I didn't I could be out of a job."

I note that the plaintiff would have had no reason whatever to think that this was the main reason for his appointment as a result of his interviews with Mr McCloskey who had made it quite clear that the referral was for the purposes of assessment/treatment of his emotional symptoms. In his statement the plaintiff recorded how Dr Poole had asked him whether he felt the need for revenge upon his assailants and looked "relieved" when he said that he had not. According to the plaintiff, Dr Poole then closed the meeting which would have been about 10 minutes in length. He recorded that he left the office with "a bad taste in my mouth" feeling that Dr Poole's attitude was essentially "that's fine, off you go". He received the impression that Dr Poole was not interested in his psychological symptoms. In his evidence to the court the plaintiff said that within seconds of Dr Poole's opening remarks suggesting that he might want revenge he had made up his mind that his function was "to make sure that I was sane". The plaintiff told Dr Turner and Professor Fahy that his appointment with Dr Poole had the appearance of "a rubber stamp exercise". He also told Professor Fahy that there had been no encouragement for him to disclose his feelings and that he might have opened up if the right approach had been adopted.

"I never thought for one moment that they could have offered help, but on the other hand even if they had made that apparent to me there was this other feeling in my head at the time that not for one moment would I be going near anybody to get any help, this is me, Mr A, and you know, this is my life; I built it this way and that's it."

[15 However, I do have two concerns about the plaintiff's interview with Dr Poole which are:

(i) Mr McCloskey had completed a post-trauma questionnaire in the course of his interviews with the plaintiff which provided a useful analysis of relevant symptoms and progress between his two home visits on 22 March and 14 May 1993. It appears that Dr Poole did not refer to that document and, in evidence, he said that he rarely did so in the early stages because he liked to approach his initial contact with an open mind and obtain his own assessment of the individual. He confirmed that, for him, the questionnaire was not an important clinical tool. While appreciating the need to form an independent clinical assessment, I had some difficulty in understanding why such a document as the questionnaire would not have been likely to prove helpful in either reaching the assessment or acting as an additional source of information against which the accuracy of such an assessment might be checked.

(ii) It is clear from Dr Poole's note that he felt that the plaintiff should have been reviewed in a further month. However, no arrangement was made to ensure that such a review took place. The suggestion was made that the plaintiff may not have had his diary available but no note was made to that effect and, even if that had been case, it seems to me that further steps should have been taken to ensure that an appointment was made. Dr Poole also said that, following this initial consultation, he would probably have spoken to Mr McCloskey who would have kept him informed of Mr A's progress. Again, no note was made to record such a contact between Dr Poole and Mr McCloskey nor was Mr McCloskey asked about such a possibility in evidence. Whatever may have been the plaintiff's attitude, Dr Poole clearly felt that he warranted a further appointment and, in my view, the omission to ensure that the plaintiff was furnished with a date and time for a further appointment represented a failure in the system. In cross-examination Dr Poole fairly conceded that, with hindsight, that was the case. He was prepared to accept that more should have been done and that, perhaps, he could have been more vigorous in pursuing the plaintiff.

"Whenever he (Mr McCloskey) did phone the last thought was it was paramount in my mind not to really to discuss anything with him, I didn't want him to know how I felt. I suppose, to put it bluntly, I didn't want to tell him any of my business."

In short, the plaintiff said, mentally, I really wanted Mr McCloskey "off my back". In such circumstances, however disillusioned he may have been with his interview with Dr Poole, it appears that the plaintiff became quite determined not to make any further disclosures about post traumatic symptoms to the OHU or, for that matter, to his own GP. Such an attitude would have been perfectly consistent with his assertion to his GP, when he attended in November 1998, that anxiety was not a cause for his complaint of palpitations and for his statement to Dr McFarland, consultant physician, in January 1999 that he was not aware of any undue stress or strain through his work that might explain his history of indigestion, despite the fact that both these attendances would have occurred during the period at which his wife described the plaintiff as being emotionally at his lowest point. As a consequence of seeing the various medical experts retained in relation to the litigation from at least 2001/2002 the plaintiff has had a diagnosis and recommendation that he would benefit from pharmacological and psychological treatment but has chosen not to undergo either. Indeed, when giving evidence he volunteered the information that, at the conclusion of one consultation, the expert recommended treatment but he gave the specialist "some reasons" why he was not prepared to accept treatment. To date, it seems the furthest he has been prepared to commit himself was sometime around 1994-1996 when he carried out some research on the internet and made a self-diagnosis of PTSD. So far as his superiors and fellow officers were concerned, the plaintiff's evidence was that, after a relatively short period when he might have been over enthusiastic, he has been performing his job in a very professional manner during the past thirteen years. It is common case that, since the assault, he has been a highly valued member of a highly specialised team as confirmed by his regular appraisals. The only possible exception was the sergeant who telephoned his wife but it appears that, after further monitoring of the plaintiff, he reached the view that his performance at work did not warrant any further intervention.

Culture

Alcohol

Training and education