An application by lawyers for the Garda Commissioner and the State lodged in the final days of Ian Bailey's civil case, in the absence of the jury, resulted in almost all of Mr Bailey's case being struck out.
In a ruling after two days of legal argument, Mr Justice John Hedigan said Mr Bailey's claim for wrongful arrest and other alleged wrongdoing by gardaí was not made within the six-year deadline required by law.
Mr Bailey's claim was lodged in May 2007. Anything occurring before May 2001 was therefore "statute barred" or out of time, the judge ruled.
However, he allowed the case to proceed on two issues: whether or not there had been a conspiracy between certain named gardaí and Marie Farrell to get statements linking Mr Bailey to the murder of Sophie Toscan Du Plantier, and whether or not certain gardaí had conspired to get statements from her alleging intimidation by Ian Bailey.
The judge said these statements made by Ms Farrell were a continuing cause of action because they remain on a garda file and the gardaí insist they were true statements made by Ms Farrell and are an accurate account of what she said.
The judge said the investigation into the murder was still alive and Mr Bailey remains a person of interest.
He said: "If the gardaí did what the plaintiff alleges it was an action that was affront to all norms of law and an attack on the rule of law. It would be, if true, an attempt to pervert the course of justice and remains a live attempt if true. These statements remain, lying heavily upon the reputation of the Plaintiff, although retracted by Marie Farrell, who says now that they are false..."
"In my judgement this alleged conspiracy, if it existed, is alive and continuing today. Whether it happened or not is a matter for the decision of the jury. It seems to me therefore in broad terms that the questions that remain for the jury are limited to what seems to me to have been the central plank of the case from the beginning.
Lawyers for the defence had argued that Mr Bailey had not lodged his claim for damages for wrongful arrest and other alleged wrongdoing within the six-year time frame set down by the Statute of Limitations.
Therefore, they said, anything that happened prior to May 2001, could not be considered in this case as part of his claim for damages.
They also argued that any part of the case not statute barred could not be pursued in a claim for loss of reputation as that must be done through a defamation action and that he had no cause of action in many areas of his claim.
They said there was no general supervisory jurisdiction by the courts over the gardaí. They also argued that it would be perverse for a jury to find that there was no reasonable grounds for suspicion on which to ground an arrest.
The State also argued that no claim could arise from the European Arrest Warrant being issued because all proceedings occurred lawfully and there was no evidence of unlawful garda actions in this application.
They said the libel proceedings could not give rise to any action for damages as they had been settled by another court.
They also argued that no stateable case of conspiracy had been pleaded or made in evidence.
Lawyers claim 'abuse of process'
Lawyers for Mr Bailey told the court, in the absence of the jury, they were shocked and dismayed that the application had been made by the State at this stage of the proceedings after a jury had sat through 59 hearing days.
They said it was an abuse of process for the application to be made at such a late stage.
They also said the allegations were so serious they needed to be decided by a jury and there was a public interest in having the jury decide.
They said the conspiracy alleged by Mr Bailey was a continuing action. He remained a person of interest in the investigation.
In relation to the libel action and the European Arrest Warrant they argued that both arose as a result of a conspiracy to implicate Mr Bailey.
In his ruling after two days of legal argument, Mr Justice Hedigan said the application was undoubtedly made at the last possible moment but said it was open to them to make.
The defendants had argued that either side could apply at any time to strike out the case or any part of it and also said the statute was pleaded at the very start of the defence.
The defence had also argued they needed to hear the evidence before they could move to strike out the whole or any part of the case.
They also said each of the gardaí against whom the gravest allegations had been made wanted to come to court to publicly deny the allegations.
The judge said the proceedings were issued on 1 May 2007 and "any claims based upon actions occurring prior to 1 May 2001 were barred by operation of law, save those that gave rise to a continuing trespass."
In dealing with the two arrests in 1997 and in 1998, the judge said they were statute barred.
He also said, having heard all the evidence, he thought they would also be withdrawn from the jury on the basis that no jury could reasonably find that gardaí did not have reasonable suspicion in both arrests and were so strong that had the gardaí not arrested Mr Bailey they would have been derelict in their duty.
He said it should be noted that the suspicion was grounded on numerous reasons other than the statement of Ms Farrell, each of which would have given grounds for reasonable suspicion of involvement in the offence and reasonable grounds for arrest.
He said damages for loss of reputation ought to be brought in defamation proceedings and could not be pursued in this case.
The judge also agreed there was no supervisory role of the courts over the gardaí as to the manner in which they conduct investigations and no claim could proceed on that basis.
The claim concerning the behaviour of gardaí with the witness Martin Graham was also statute barred, having occurred before May 2001.
However, the judge said even if this evidence was accepted the events were without consequence for Mr Bailey since no confession or prejudicial information was obtained.
In relation to damaging ongoing publicity or media attention it was impossible to disentangle the pre- and post-2001 media coverage.
"Claims arising from the former are statute barred and the latter was inevitable and uncontrollable by anyone," the judge said, adding that no claim could arise out of that on the evidence brought before the court.
He also said the libel actions were settled by accord and satisfaction following an appeal to the High Court and the terms had not been disclosed by Mr Bailey.
He said it must be noted that Ms Farrell had retracted her statements after the Circuit Court judgment and before the High Court appeal.
On the European Arrest Warrant, the judge said he could readily accept that such a process may be highly stressful and frightening for anyone subjected to it.
It was, however, a process provided for by law and no garda misdeeds could stymie such a process.
It was clear from the evidence that the French had conducted their own investigation, he said.
The claim arising from an alleged attempt to put pressure on the Director of Public Prosecutions was also statute barred, he said.
