Press Releases - 2005

7 Nov 2005

Police Officers' Post Traumatic Stress Disorder Case Opens

The biggest group action ever in the Northern Ireland High Court is to begin on Monday 7 November.

The case is being taken by over 5000 serving and former police officers who are claiming damages for alleged negligence by their employer in the wake of psychiatric injury connected to their horrific experiences in the RUC/PSNI.

The officers are not claiming for the exposure to traumatic incidents in itself - they accepted the risks of service in Northern Ireland and knew well the kind of situations they would meet. What they do not accept is the added unnecessary risk created by the alleged negligence of their employer, the Chief Constable.

These injuries included post-traumatic stress disorder, anxiety, and depression. There is of course a range of severity and some of those in the cohort have been very badly injured. Injuries of the mind can be as disabling and damaging as physical injuries. They can destroy lives and break families.

The plaintiffs' case is that they were inadequately equipped to deal with the effects of the extremely traumatic nature of their duties. It is also alleged that their Authorities failed to deal properly with the predictable psychiatric and psychological consequences of such duties. The officers were aware of the obvious and exceptional risks and hazards of their service but so was their employer. He had a duty to think through those risks and hazards in a systematic way- what did they mean for the psychological health as well as the physical health of the police? He had a duty to take all reasonable steps to protect officers against the effects of those risks. They could not do it for themselves. It required a good systematic approach by the Force.

The action covers the period from the commencement of the Troubles in Northern Ireland but the main focus is on the late 1970s onwards. The plaintiffs allege that by that stage, the RUC had knowledge of the potential problems facing a workforce that was being exposed to severe trauma on a daily basis. There was sufficient evidence to indicate that a substantial number of officers would come to psychiatric harm if systems were not put in place to protect them. The Force did nothing effective for too long. When they began to think about the problem, they took too long about doing it. When the group who had thought about it recommended a package of measures, only some of them were implemented, and they came too slowly.

When an Occupational Health Unit was set up in 1986, it was allowed to operate under capacity for years, unable to meet even the expressed demand for its services.

It is anticipated the trial will last until Easter next year. In the course of the trial, 12 lead cases will be heard. These individual cases will illustrate the central generic issues in the case. The generic trial will not deal with issues of individual compensation. Consideration of damages will have to follow after the findings in the generic case.

The main purpose of the litigation is to obtain redress, by way of compensation, for the loss sustained by those officers who have suffered as a result of the alleged negligence. A legal case cannot remake lives. All that a court can order in this kind of case, is financial compensation, and for many of those in the cohort, there is a real need for compensation and financial support, despite all the pensions and other existing arrangements. Beyond that, the plaintiffs - and particularly the Police Federation, which is largely funding its members' claims - are hopeful that a successful result will bring about much needed change within the Force, leading to a more enlightened approach to the prevention, detection and treatment of psychiatric injuries to its officers. Many of the plaintiffs are still serving. For them proper systems of care are particularly important.

This case is not about police officers complaining about trivial things. It is about people with real problems, in some cases suffering from serious and incapacitating psychiatric illness as a consequence of years of relentless and repeated exposure to horror, hatred, violence and death. They were exposed to those things in order to protect us.

Notes to Editors:

1. Representatives of the Police Federation for Northern Ireland and the plaintiffs' legal team will be at the High Court from 9am onwards prior to the start of the Court at 10am.

2. For further information on behalf of the Police Federation please contact Alan Burnside, Burnside PR Ltd, on 028 9042 8899, mobile 07768 300125 or email alan.burnside@burnsidepr.com

3. For further information on behalf of Edwards & Company please contact Don Anderson on 02891 817930, mobile 07803 833180 or email damedia@btinternet.com

4. A brief CV of the plaintiffs' senior counsel is attached.

STEPHEN IRWIN QC - SUMMARY CV 2005

Stephen Irwin was born in Belfast and grew up in Helen's Bay. He went to MCB and then was educated at Cambridge University. He now lives in England but has family in Northern Ireland and has always visited regularly.

He has been a barrister in practice in London since 1976 and was called to the Bar of Northern Ireland in 1996. He became a Queen's Counsel in 1997. He has specialised in clinical negligence cases since the early 1980s, with a particular interest in cerebral palsy, public law and treatment cases and group actions. He has been in more than 300 cerebral palsy cases. He was lead counsel in the CJD litigation, the BSE Inquiry and ligitation, Lariam, Vincristine, Organophosphate and other drug cases. He was lead counsel for the claimants in the military PTSD group litigation and in advising on the Gulf War case. He represented the families in the Alder Hey children's hospital body parts case. He is the lead author of Medical Negligence Litigation published by LAG, as well as many other articles and chapters in books. He returned to full-time practice at the beginning of 2005, having served as Chairman of the Bar of England and Wales for 2004.