PTSD

A brief factual history of the Action

In the early months of 2000 the Police Federation for Northern Ireland received a number of queries from its members concerning the possibility of proceedings against their employer in relation to psychiatric injury which they believed to be associated with their duties in the RUC, as it then was. The Federation instructed one of its appointed firms of solicitors, Edwards & Co. to provide legal advice to these members. During the same few months the media began to report details of a case in England where soldiers, including Northern Ireland veterans, were suing the MOD for negligence in relation to their failure to provide proper care for, or to prevent, post traumatic disorders which arose as a result of their service. Following some initial research, Edwards & Co. and their Counsel advised the Federation that there were reasonable prospects of establishing liability on the basis of the failure of the Force to take adequate steps to prevent, detect or treat post-traumatic disorders of various types.

The Federation was aware of the potential numbers involved and therefore, with the advice of solicitors and Counsel, established an administrative system for notifying members of their right to claim and processing their claims if they wished to proceed. The system is still in place for those wishing to make a claim - i.e. a questionnaire is obtained from the Federation offices, to be completed and returned to them, and it is then forwarded to Edwards & Co. where it is assessed for inclusion in the Action, or for further details to be taken by a solicitor in that firm.

In June 2001 proceedings were formally issued in the High Court and since that date considerable work has been carried out in relation to the generic issues (i.e. issues of fault which are common to all cases). Because of the large numbers involved, the High Court ordered that the case should proceed as a Group Action. The nature of a Group Action is such that the generic case proceeds to trial and, if the generic case is won, then each individual claim will be assessed on its own merits. This means that although an individual case is assessed at an early stage to ensure that it comes within the remit of the Group Action, and although we ask for updates as to individual circumstances and any relevant changes, the focus of the case is really on the generic issues. Ultimately, if the case is successful, then each individual case is prepared so that separate damages can be assessed . This means that, for example, individual claimants will not be medically examined until much later in the process. The reason for this is that any medical report obtained now would be likely to be out of date by the time individual cases are being prepared and therefore the exercise would have to be repeated. We are also aware, from experience, that clients find these examinations to be distressing and we would wish to keep such distress to a minimum.

The exception to this is the 36 lead cases which have been carefully selected by the Plaintiffs and the Defendants to illustrate the generic issues in the case. These cases will be used as examples or reference points in the generic trial.

It is hoped that the Action will reach trial in 2005 so that the generic issues can be determined. The result would then be applied to individual cases as outlined above.