Judgement reserved in Peter Pringle damages case
Judgement has been reserved at the High Court in the State's application to dismiss a damages claim brought by Peter Pringle, who served almost 15 years in prison before his 1980 conviction for the murder of two gardaí was overturned as unsafe and unsatisfactory.
He was originally sentenced to death for the murder of gardaí John Morley and Henry Byrne but his sentence was later commuted to 40 years imprisonment of which he served 14 years and 10 months until his conviction was quashed by the Court of Criminal Appeal in 1995.
He opposes the State’s bid to dismiss his damages action and has brought a separate motion to have the State discover documents related to DNA testing which he says he requires to progress his damages claim.
Following the conclusion of submissions from both parties today, Ms Justice Carmel Stewart said she was reserving judgment in the applications.
Mr Pringle claims the State was negligent and breached his constitutional rights because crucial evidence was not disclosed to him before his trial before the non-jury Special Criminal Court which had convicted him of the murder of both gardaí during a bank robbery in Ballaghaderreen, Co Roscommon, in July 1980.
The State want the damages claim, initiated in the mid 1990s, dismissed on grounds including inordinate delay.
Mr Pringle, with an address in Co Galway, denies delay on his part and claims any delay has been caused by the State.
In his discovery application, he wants discovery of documents relating to an analysis carried out in 2002 by the Forensic Science Service in Birmingham.
The discovery application relates to the DNA analysis on samples of hair taken from a car used in the robbery and a voluntary blood sample given by Mr Pringle in 1994.
The State in 2003 informed Mr Pringle’s lawyers the analysis showed a match had been obtained which provided “strong support” for the proposition the recovered hair originated from Mr Pringle.
Mr Pringle believes the DNA report is a means to put a stop to his damages claim.
His lawyers seek the paperwork in connection with the DNA analysis but that material had not been provided to them.
The State denies Mr Pringle’s claims in relation to the report and has opposed the discovery motion.
