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

Traumatic Events and Stresses

•    In 1970 the plaintiff learned through high placed intelligent sources of a concerted attempt to murder him during a visit to his father-in-law which was apparently abandoned as a consequence of representations by one of the terrorist group that his father-in-law was a decent man.

•    In 1971 he learnt of a further attempt to assassinate him while attending mass at St Peter's Church in Lurgan which was again aborted.

•    On 7 November 1971 the plaintiff arrived at the scene of the murder of Signalman Geng approximately 6 minutes after he had been shot and he attempted to comfort the soldier.

•    In October 1972 a bomb exploded under the police accommodation in which the plaintiff was sleeping in Derry although, fortunately, he escaped without injury.

•    In 1974 the plaintiff attended the scene of a massive car bomb in Magherafelt comprising a lorry that had been packed with 1000lbs of explosives. In the course of clearing the area the bomb exploded when the plaintiff was approximately 300 metres away sheltering against a wall. A civilian was decapitated in the blast and the sergeant with whom the plaintiff had been standing lost his eye as a consequence of being struck by shrapnel.

•    In October/November 1976 the plaintiff learned that he had been identified as a target for attempted murder whilst visiting his sick child at the Royal Belfast Hospital for Sick Children.

•    In September 1982 a booby-trap bomb was placed under a vehicle which belonged to a fireman who lived convenient to the plaintiff's house. Intelligence received immediately afterwards confirmed that this device had been intended for the plaintiff and that the attackers, having failed in their attempt, intended to come back and complete their task. The plaintiff, whose wife was then some 8 months pregnant, was provided with a full-time police guard in the house and, on 16 October, he and his family were moved out while soldiers took up ambush positions within the grounds of his house and on an adjacent road. During the course of the night an armed man was seen moving along the side of the plaintiff's house in the direction of one of his vehicles. He ran off when challenged by the soldiers. Following this attack the plaintiff and his family were forced to abandon their home in Crumlin and find alternative accommodation.

•    On 20 March 1989 the plaintiff had been due to travel with Chief Superintendent Harry Breen and Superintendent Bob Buchanan to attend a meeting in Dundalk Garda Station. Shortly before leaving the plaintiff was required to attend a meeting of 3 Brigade which had been brought forward and he was prevented from making the journey. The Superintendent and Chief Superintendent were subsequently murdered as they returned from their meeting and, approximately 2 weeks later, the plaintiff learned that the terrorists had searched the dead officers and, in the course of doing so, had obtained details identifying his home, private vehicle and other personal details. He was informed that terrorists were at an advanced stage of an operation designed to place a bomb under the family car at his home in Lisburn. The planned attack did not take place as a consequence of significantly increased security around the plaintiff's home but he was informed by his authorities that they could no longer effectively protect him or his family and he was encouraged to move to England.

•    A short time after the incident referred to above, in May/June 1989, the plaintiff awoke in the early hours of the morning to observe a male dressed in dark clothes acting furtively at the gate of his house. The plaintiff was convinced that this was a further terrorist attack and drew his official weapon on the basis that he would probably have to shoot the person acting suspiciously. It subsequently emerged that the person concerned was not a terrorist but an individual acting under the influence of drugs.

Medical Evidence

The Plaintiff's Relationship with the OHU

"I know that……but that's the Force Order and that's the way we read them."

The plaintiff was also asked about Force Order 64 of 1986 which dealt with sickness levels and which provided, at paragraph 10(1), that:

"Any illness identified by supervisory members as being associated with aspects of stress, depression or allied condition must be instantly referred to the Chief Medical Advisor through Chief Constable (Personnel Branch). The conditions such as described may result in serious consequences and professional guidance at an early stage is of paramount importance."

The plaintiff accepted that he had read this document although he qualified his acceptance by saying that he might well "have given it a quick perusal" and that Force Orders ".. weren't necessarily … studied in depth." However, the plaintiff also accepted that, at the material time, he was the relevant supervisory member in the computer branch. In such circumstances he was again asked why he thought that the OHU was only concerned with physical matters and his answer was:

"That's just the conscious awareness I had of it …….in terms of dealing with it."

He accepted that it was "inherent in the document" that it referred to stress related conditions but said that "quite frankly … I didn't take it on board at the time." I find it very difficult to understand the plaintiff's adamant belief that the OHU dealt only with physical injuries bearing in mind that at the time of the publication of these two Force Orders he was a Superintendent and a supervisory member in the Computer Services Branch and not subject to the stresses of operational Special Branch duties. Indeed, in his witness statement, he observed that he had absolutely no concerns about the work at this time. In my view the plaintiff must be regarded as having the ability and duty to exercise an appropriate degree of personal responsibility.

"Not remotely…… The OHU certainly did not occupy the centre of my consciousness in terms of the operational role with which we had and I would not have had the confidence in any of them to go there."

He reaffirmed this attitude during cross-examination emphasising that however often he had been assured of confidentiality he would not have been persuaded. He said that he had that perception at the time and that it was a perception that he retained.

"NB: Recently transferred SDC Newry.

Has suffered bomb and gun attack at home.

Ongoing legal proceedings.

Son badly affected."

"Welby Henry, all clear.

Accepts pressure, long hours etc etc."

The plaintiff had some faint recollection that he had telephoned to inform Dr Courtney of the outcome of a visit that he had made to Dr Henry but, when questioned further in cross-examination, he candidly admitted that he did not recall taking the call or the context in which it had been made.

Conclusions

"I found him to be a very impressive person, very intelligent, articulate, by his own description and by the description in the records also reticent, resilient, reluctant to disclose symptoms, perhaps partly cultural reasons, partly career ambition reasons, partly because of his notion of what being masculine and a police officer is about."

The plaintiff clearly harboured a deep seated and virtually unshakable belief that the disclosure of any symptoms of a psychiatric nature to the OHU could not be treated with confidentiality. While he may have been prepared to reveal some of his feelings to Chief Superintendent Breen, who was subsequently so tragically murdered, I am satisfied that he would only have done so on the clear understanding that, as a fellow Special Branch Officer, there would be no circumstances under which such a revelation could be further disclosed. I do not consider that any of his contacts with the OHU were such as to reasonably require Dr Courtney and his staff to take any further action and, in my view, it was reasonable to interpret his responses to the GHQ questionnaire in January 1989 as "normal". In relation to the latter point I preferred the evidence of Professor Fahy to that of Dr Turner.

Treatment

"Having watched him for three days (giving evidence) it seemed to me to become more and more the central issue in his problems."

When Mr Irwin QC, as he then was, suggested in cross-examination that the effect of the dislocation of the plaintiff from Northern Ireland to England had "long gone" Professor Fahy expressed the view that the dislocation was the primary force acting on the plaintiff's primary focus which was his career. As Professor Fahy said, the plaintiff remains dislocated. In my view, Professor Fahy's clinical judgment that the plaintiff would have coped if he had stayed in Northern Ireland is probably accurate. Over the years, despite having to withstand enormous pressures, the plaintiff had proved himself to be extremely resilient and courageous, capable of impressive demonstrations of leadership and noted, among other things, for his sense of humour. Had he remained in Northern Ireland I think that, in time, his reluctance to disclose his symptoms and discuss his problems might have been overcome and that, despite being a difficult patient to treat, there is a real possibility that his symptoms might at least have been reduced by treatment afforded by the OHU.