Mick Clifford: One man’s journey shows how the State responds when it wrongs a citizen

Stephen Murphy, who was the subject of a prosecution that should never have happened and whose pursuit of justice has been vindicated, could still face a further ordeal

Stephen Murphy, from Drimoleague, West Cork, has met stone walls in attempting to get state agencies to fulfil the wishes of the court.

Stephen Murphy is well versed on the power of the State, and how that power is not always exercised as designed in a democracy. 

The West Cork native was the subject of a prosecution that should never have happened. 

He believed that he had been the victim of a serious wrong and pursued the matter through the courts. 

So began an odyssey in which he found himself thrust onto the high seas of the legal world, left to navigate himself as he couldn’t find a legal counsel who would represent him.

Despite setbacks, he pursued the matter all the way to the Supreme Court, where he finally got acknowledgement of the travails to which he had been subjected. 

A judge, who went on to serve as chief justice, recommended that he be suitably recompensed as recognition for what he’d been put through. 

That was seven years ago. Since, various organs of the State have been prevaricating, refusing to act as the judge instructed, regarding Mr Murphy as an opponent to be played rather than a victim of ineptitude.

As such, the case is a perfect example of how the State responds when it is found to have done wrong to a citizen.

Stephen Murphy’s long journey began in his native Drimoleague when a problem arose with a neighbour over a right of way. 

There followed two confrontations on the road outside their home when the neighbour was driving cattle.

Stephen, his sister Anne, and their father Stephen Snr — who has since died — were prosecuted in the district court for public order offences, arising out of one of the confrontations. 

Stephen was particularly aggrieved at the conviction because he hadn’t been present on the day of the incident. 

Most of the charges were set aside at the circuit court, but the one involving Stephen was not. 

He sought a judicial review of the decision.

“I argued about how I wasn’t there,” he told the Irish Examiner of his appearance at the judicial review, where he represented himself.

“In the end, the DPP ruled that the summons weren’t properly drafted and I won.” 

By then, the whole affair had perturbed the siblings to the point that he believed the prosecution against him had been pursued maliciously. 

This was based on what they saw as a friendship between his neighbour and some of the gardaí.

So began Stephen Murphy’s odyssey through the superior courts, representing himself and his sister. 

In 2003, the High Court ruled against him on the basis that the prosecution appeared to be down to a typist’s error and was not therefore malicious. 

The Murphy siblings were not satisfied with that and pursued the matter all the way to the Supreme Court over the following decade and more.

Supreme Court ruling

In 2016, the Supreme Court ruled against the Murphys but with some caveats. 

Referring to the charges brought against Mr Murphy for offences he couldn’t have committed, Judge Peter Charleton ruled: “That original conviction should never have happened. Furthermore, there should never have been a recommendation to the district superintendent of the gardaí to prosecute him in respect of any such offence… This is not impressive. 

"While there is nothing wrong with the other charges, it is necessary for the gardaí to exercise care in the prosecution of citizens.” 

Judge Frank Clarke, sitting with Judge Charleton and Judge Elizabeth Dunne, said that despite the result, the State should make a “significant” ex gratia payment to the Murphy siblings for what they had been put through in attempting to right a wrong over 20 years.

The court, through Judge Clarke’s comment, was making a determination that while the law had not been broken, a citizen, Mr Murphy, had been badly served initially and fought all the way by state agencies apparently incapable of just holding up their hands and admitting a wrong. 

Ordinarily, it might be expected that that would be the end of the matter, the Murphys would receive a significant payment and state agencies would resolve to learn something from how they had served these particular citizens. That’s not what happened. 

In 2017, Mr Murphy wrote to the chief state solicitor’s office asking about progress on sending him on the payment. The reply was less than assuring.

“In relation to the ex gratia payment referred to in your letter and in the comments of Mr Justice Clarke which do not form part of the enclosed order, I do not have instructions to make a payment to you,” the responding letter read.

Solidarity/People Before Profit TD Mick Barry sought answers through a parliamentary question the same year and also got fobbed off. 

Over the following six years, Stephen Murphy pursued the matter with the same doggedness he had deployed in ploughing through the courts for over 20 years. 

He has met stone walls. 

Along the way, he employed a solicitor, Catherine O’Brien of Dunmanway, to represent him, but even that has failed to get the agencies to fulfil the wishes of the court.

The buck has been passed back and forth. 

The chief state solicitor says it can only act on instructions. The DPP, which was party to the case, says it has nothing to do with its office. 

The gardaí aren’t saying very much at all. 

In one correspondence seen by the Irish Examiner, an official in the chief state solicitor’s office records that he has contacted An Garda Síochána 13 times about the matter but has not received any reply.

In the Dáil, Mr Barry has again put a question to the justice minister about it and has received the stock answer that the matter is at hand. 

“If this is an example of a case being processed ‘as quickly as possible’ then I sure would hate to see what the State deliberately drawing out proceedings might look like,” said Mr Barry. 

“Run-of-the-mill bureaucratic delays are one thing but this case clearly smacks of very deliberate foot-dragging and a vindictive stance towards Mr Murphy and his family.” 

A spokesperson for An Garda Síochána told the Irish Examiner it cannot comment on communications with the chief state solicitor’s office, “nor can we comment on the specifics of any case of any named individual”. 

It is open to Stephen Murphy to pursue the matter further, initially through the circuit court. 

This would lead to more cost, more delays, and if form is anything to go by, a settlement by the state agencies just before a public hearing of the matter ensues. 

Why exactly a citizen who has been wronged, and whose pursuit of justice has been vindicated, should have to be put through a further ordeal is entirely unclear, but most certainly not unknown in terms of how the State selectively deals with some of its citizens.