Factual and Procedural Background
The Applicant, a member of the national police service, was shot while on duty during an armed search operation on 7 December 2017. He sustained a gunshot wound to his left arm, neurological injury, and psychological injury, including post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). [1][2][3][4][5]
The Applicant returned to operational duties in February 2019 but was medically retired in late 2022. He attributed his retirement to continuing PTSD symptoms, which were aggravated by a further incident in 2021. [6][7][5][8]
Malice was admitted under section 2 of the 1941 Act, and the Applicant was authorised to bring the application on 6 March 2023. The principal issues concerned the appropriate compensation for his injuries and his claim for future loss of earnings based on alleged promotional prospects. [9][10]
Legal Issues Presented
- What level of general damages was appropriate for the Applicant’s psychiatric and physical injuries? [10][11][12][13]
- Whether the Applicant had established a claim for future loss of earnings based on the prospect of promotion within the police service. [10][14][15]
- How the Applicant’s post-retirement employment choices and duty to mitigate loss affected the future-loss claim. [14][16][17]
Arguments of the Parties
Applicant’s Arguments
- The Applicant argued that his PTSD was sufficiently serious to fall within the severe category under the Personal Injury Guidelines and sought an award within the severe range. [11]
- He maintained that the shooting caused lasting psychological consequences, ultimately ending his police career, despite his earlier return to full operational duties. [6][18][8][19]
- He argued that, but for the injury, he had a realistic opportunity of promotion to inspector and potentially higher ranks. [20][21][14][22]
Respondent’s Arguments
- The Respondent argued that the PTSD fell within the moderate category under the Personal Injury Guidelines. [11]
- It relied on the Applicant’s return to unrestricted front-line policing, performance of demanding duties, and earlier psychiatric assessments indicating improvement and no impediment to work. [23][24]
- It disputed the future promotional-loss claim, emphasising the absence of documentary evidence that promotion was likely and the small proportion of officers who progressed to inspector. [25]
- It argued that the Applicant had failed to mitigate his loss by choosing to remain in the family fitness business instead of pursuing potentially better-paid employment. [16][17]
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent |
Rule or Principle Cited For |
Application by the Court |
| Collins v Parm |
The “step-back” methodology for ensuring that a total damages award is just and proportionate and does not duplicate compensation. |
The Court held that the physical and psychiatric injuries had distinct consequences, limited temporal overlap, and separate residual effects. It therefore departed from a discount under the step-back approach, finding that such a discount would be unfair and that the combined award did not overcompensate the Applicant. [26][27] |
Court’s Reasoning and Analysis
The Court accepted the medical evidence that the Applicant suffered significant PTSD requiring extensive treatment. It found that the apparent improvement between 2018 and 2021 represented partial adaptation rather than full recovery, and that the 2021 incident retriggered his symptoms and contributed to his retirement. [4][5][28][29]
Having regard to the Applicant’s age, treatment, occupational and interpersonal impact, associated injuries, and guarded prognosis, the Court assessed the PTSD in the mid-range of the severe category and awarded €90,000. [12][30]
The Court found that the physical injuries caused permanent weakness, pain, sensory loss, cold intolerance, scar sensitivity, and scarring. Because the injuries were interrelated, it assessed them globally and awarded €50,000. [31][13]
The Court considered the step-back methodology but declined to apply a discount. It regarded the physical and psychiatric injuries as sufficiently distinct and concluded that the combined award would not result in overcompensation. [26][27]
Past loss of earnings was agreed at €118,530. For future loss, the Court accepted that the Applicant’s prospects of promotion to inspector were materially stronger than speculative, based on his service record, qualifications, examination success, and remaining potential service. However, promotion was not established as probable because he had achieved only one substantive promotion after many years, there was no supporting documentary evidence from the police service, and fewer than 5% of officers progressed to inspector. [14][25][15]
The Court therefore assessed future loss on the basis that the Applicant would have remained a sergeant until retirement at age 62. It awarded €73,340 for future net earnings, nil for pension loss, and €60,600 for loss of gratuity. [15][32]
The Court also recorded agreed special damages of €11,613.96. [33]
Holding and Implications
Judgment was entered for the Applicant in the sum of €404,083.96, together with the appropriate order for High Court costs. [34][35]
The award comprised €140,000 in general damages, €252,470 for loss of earnings and gratuity, and €11,613.96 in special damages. [36][37][38]
The decision directly determines the compensation payable to the Applicant. The opinion does not state that a new precedent was established.