Generate a structured brief — facts, issues, held, reasoning, and significance — for this case in seconds. Or browse the verbatim judgment via the source links below.
THE COMMISSIONER OF AN GARDA S � OCH � NA, THE GOVERNOR OF CLOVERHILL PRISON, THE MINISTER FOR JUSTICE AND EQUALITY, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL AND IRELAND
                  On 9th August 2011, the applicant applied to the High Court pursuant to Article 40.4.1� to enquire into the legality of his detention. The High Court held that it was lawful and this decision was appealed to this Court. This Court reversed this finding and ordered the plaintiff�s release: see [2011] IESC 41. In the period while this appeal was pending, G.E.�s application for subsidiary protection was refused by the Minister for Justice and Equality.
The claim for false imprisonment: the High Court and Court of Appeal proceedings
              �Critically, however, Faherty J. further held that the plaintiff�s deprivation of his liberty for some twenty-six days could not be remedied by an award of nominal damages, as urged by the defendants. She accordingly awarded the sum of � 7,500 in respect of the false imprisonment. In arriving at this conclusion Faherty J. expressly took into account the credibility deficits in the plaintiff�s evidence, such that the amount of damages actually awarded was less than it might otherwise have been.
              Murray J. also made the further point that (at 473):
Auto-extracted from BAILII. Full structured brief in progress — the source links below give you the verbatim judgment in the meantime.
Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.
Common Room
0 comments · About the Common Room →
No comments yet — start the discussion.
Voted-best comments help future students and feed Caselaw's AI study tools.