The Court of Appeal has overturned a decision to strike out Peter Pringle's damages claim against the State over his conviction and the 15-years he spent behind bars for crimes he did not commit.
Mr Pringle was convicted of the murders of two Gardai John Morley and Henry Byrne during a bank robbery in Ballaghadreen, Co Roscommon in July 1980.
He was released from prison after his convictions were deemed unsafe and quashed in 1995.
The High Court had struck out a damage claim he brought over his conviction and lengthy incarceration on the grounds of inordinate and inexcusable delay in progressing his claim
In a lengthy and detailed judgement, a three-judge court COA overturned that decision, on the basis that a key legal issue in the case that needed to be determined had not been addressed.
The COA remitted the case back to High Court for a fresh consideration.
Mr Pringle who is based in Glenicmurrin Costelloe, Co Galway was sentenced to death in 1981 for the murder of the gardai.
In proceedings brought against the State he claims the state was negligent and breached his constitutional rights because crucial evidence was not disclosed to him prior to his trial before the Special Criminal Court, where he was convicted of the Garda's murders.
After his death sentence was commuted to 40 years in jail, he served 14 years and 10 months in prison, before the then Court of Criminal Appeal in 1995 found his convictions to be unsafe and unsatisfactory.
Two other men were convicted of the murders and were released from prison in 2013.
In 2019 the High Court, following an application by the State, dismissed Mr Pringle's damages action, which originated in the 1990s, on the grounds that he was responsible for inordinate and inexcusable delay.
The State successfully argued that it would be prejudiced by the fact that many relevant witnesses would not be available due to death and untraceability.
Mr Pringle appealed that decision to the Court of Appeal.
In its judgement the COA comprised of Ms Justice Una Ni Raifeartaigh, Ms Justice Ann Power and Mr Justice Donald Binchy set aside the High Court's decision and remitted it back to the High Court
Giving the court's decision Ms Justice Ni Raifeartaigh said the case was not straightforward and there was "a difficult and key legal issue at the heart of the application".
The question raised was whether the State would be legally entitled to use evidence with a view to establishing the appellant's involvement in the events in 1980, that were the subject of the criminal trial and in respect of which his conviction was quashed.
Mr Pringle, she said, maintains that the presumption of innocence prevents the State from doing so; while the State maintains that it does not, she said.
This in turn is "highly relevant" to the prejudice alleged by the state, because it contends that it requires a large pool of witnesses to defend itself and that many of those witnesses are no longer available by reason of the appellant's delay, the judge said.
This dispute as to the proper parameters of the damages claim had rendered the exercise of adjudicating upon this appeal considerably more complex than first thought, the judge said.
The judge said the COA accepted the High Court's finding that Mr Pringle was responsible for inordinate and inexcusable delay in progressing his proceedings.
However, the judge said that a key legal issue in the case must be determined before the prejudice asserted by the State can be properly assessed.
This key legal issue is the precise scope of the issues in the case having regard to the presumption of innocence and the extent to which it may or may not limit the State in terms of how they present their defence to the appellant's claim.
This important issue was not squarely before the High Court or the COA, she said.
It was something of considerable complexity and the court did not consider it appropriate to rule upon it, given the way it arose.
The COA could not rule definitively on this issue, the judge said, adding that the court was hampered in assessing the degree of prejudice claimed.
Given the degree of uncertainty surrounding these key matters, together with the serious and unique nature of the case, the COA did not consider that the balance of justice is to dismiss the proceedings now.
In such circumstances the judge said it was setting aside the High Court's decision and remitted it back to the High Court for fresh consideration, after certain events have taken place.
The case should proceed before the High Court clarifying the scope of Mr Pringle's damages proceedings, the judge said.
In addition, the High Court must make a ruling on whether the State are entitled to put the appellant's guilt in issue in the proceedings including related matters such as the burden of proof.
The case should proceed before the High Court clarifying the scope of Mr Pringle's damages proceedings, the judge added.
It was a matter for the High Court and the parties to choose the appropriate mechanisms by which they think these issues can be addressed, the COA concluded.
