High Court awards damages for psychological injury and aggravated damages in a malicious shooting case.

THE HIGH COURT

[2025] IEHC 718

[Record No. 2016/10355P]

BETWEEN

SHAUN DOHERTY

PLAINTIFF

AND

PATRICK J FRIEL

DEFENDANT

JUDGMENT of Ms Justice Reynolds delivered on the 11th day of November 2025.

Introduction.

1. This case concerns a shooting incident in Churchill, Letterkenny, Co Donegal in January 2015, involving two neighbouring farmers (the facts of which are set out in detail in the related judgment of Sweeney v Friel [2025] IEHC 716. The plaintiff in this case was helping Gerald Sweeney with his farm work on the day in question and was driving Mr Sweeney's jeep towards a laneway which bordered both Mr Sweeney’s and Mr Friel’s farm holdings. As stated above, the background and circumstances of what happened thereafter are set out in the related proceedings and I do not propose to rehearse them again here.

2. Suffice to say, the plaintiff in these proceedings also sustained significant psychological injuries in circumstances where the jeep in which he was travelling was deliberately, violently, and maliciously attacked by the defendant and his son. Further, the plaintiff witnessed the defendant shooting Mr Sweeney and attacking his vehicle with a nail bar. He was in fear for his own safety and was told by the defendant that if he did not leave the area he would be subjected to the same treatment. Shots were fired at his vehicle and he quickly retreated from the scene.

3. A full chronology of events thereafter is set out in the related judgment and needs to be read in conjunction with this determination. The approach taken by the defendant in the conduct of both sets of proceedings is similar and therefore I propose to adopt the findings I have already made on the issues of aggravated and exemplary damages.

The plaintiff’s evidence.

4. The plaintiff stated that he was at the entrance to the laneway and witnessed the vile and vicious attack on Gerald Sweeney by the defendant and his son. They shouted abusive and threatening language and attacked his vehicle. Suddenly he heard “a bang” and got out of the vehicle. The defendant then roared at him to leave the laneway, or he would “finish him off.” His immediate concern was for his friend. The defendant then approached his vehicle and pointed the gun at him, again shouting “I’ll do the same to you.” He stated he then left the scene as he felt utterly helpless and called for an ambulance. The guards arrived shortly thereafter and brought matters under control.

5. The plaintiff stated he was extremely distressed and traumatised by the violent and vicious attack which was unprovoked. He attended for medical treatment as he was anxious, agitated and depressed in the aftermath of the events. His GP referred him for counselling, and he was also assessed by Dr. Haley, Consultant Psychiatrist.

6. He stated that his recovery from a mental health perspective was slow. He attended counselling for almost three years. During that period, he suffered significant anxiety and depression and became socially withdrawn and isolated. He avoided events locally for fear that the defendant would be present. Whilst he no longer requires treatment, he is remains hyper vigilant and suffers bouts of anxiety periodically.

The injuries

7. The court has had the benefit of the following medical reports: -

(a) Dr Josephine Tiernan GP – 18 June 2015

(b) Mr Philip O'Rourke, Psychotherapist – 22 July 2016

(c) Dr C.J. Haley, Consultant Psychiatrist – 27February 2017.

8. The plaintiff was extremely shocked and distressed by the events that unfolded on the day and felt helpless. He attended for medical treatment that evening and was suffering from anxiety, agitation and vomiting. He was prescribed anxiolytic medication. He re-attended a few days later complaining of disturbed sleep, nightmares, and general anxiety. He was worried that the defendant was still at large and would carry out his threat to kill him. He was prescribed night sedatives.

9. The plaintiff subsequently complained to his GP of little improvement in his mental condition and was referred for counselling. He started counselling, attending twice a month. His sleep pattern remained disturbed, and he lost interest/enjoyment in most things. He complained of poor mood, irritability, anxiety and distress.

10. The plaintiff’s counsellor noted that his mood was low, he was consistently suffering from sleep loss, tiredness, headaches, loss of ability to focus and lack of interest in his general well-being. The plaintiff reported emotional numbness and was suffering from regular panic attacks. He became socially withdrawn, had lost interest in his passion for horses and found it difficult to motivate himself to carry out even the simplest of tasks. The plaintiff made slow and steady progress in counselling.

11. In February 2017, the plaintiff attended with Dr C.J. Haley, Consultant Psychiatrist and continued to complain of generalised anxiety and depression. Dr Haley opined that the plaintiff had suffered adverse psychological and mental health consequences. He noted that the plaintiff continued to have significant symptoms over two years post incident. A diagnosis of mixed anxiety and depression was made. The plaintiff was advised to continue counselling and the use of anxiety management techniques to deal with his ongoing symptoms.

Quantum

12. This is a case of considerable antiquity and in circumstances where no guidance is available from the Book of Quantum, the court has had due regard to the approach as outlined in the Personal Injury Guidelines for the assessment of psychological injuries and the considerations to be taken into account.

13. The Plaintiff was a single man of 34 years of age at the time of the incident (now 43). It had a profound effect on him with significant adverse mental health consequences as outlined above. He lost interest in his well-being and became socially withdrawn and isolated. He avoided socialising in the local area for fear of meeting the defendant. The drawn-out nature of the proceedings has taken its toll on him, and he is anxious to put these matters behind him. He remains hyper vigilant and suffers from intermittent bouts of anxiety.

14. I am satisfied from the evidence that the plaintiff suffered significant adverse mental health consequences which have been prolonged in nature despite his early engagement with treatment. In all the circumstances I am satisfied that the appropriate award is a sum of €50,000.00.

Aggravated and exemplary damages

15. As stated above, I propose to adopt my findings in the related judgment and will award the sum of €30,000.00. I should add that in considering such damages in both cases, the court heard evidence that the defendant’s means extend beyond his farming enterprise in circumstances where he is a successful businessperson. In the instant case, I am satisfied that his conduct has exacerbated the plaintiff’s suffering, prolonged his recovery, and denied him the opportunity of having his claim dealt with in a timely fashion. His conduct has been reprehensible in every manner, and the court must mark its disapproval both in terms of further punishment and to provide a deterrent for such behaviour.

Special damages

16. A figure of €7,505.00 is claimed in respect of special damages to include the solicitor’s fee for the PIAB application, medical and travel expenses. I am satisfied from the evidence that the plaintiff is entitled to fully recover this sum.

Final orders

17. The total award therefore is €87,505.00. Before making final orders the court seeks the assistance of the plaintiff’s solicitor to serve a hard copy of this judgment upon the defendant in the manner adopted for service as necessary during these proceedings along with a covering letter advising that the court will make final orders at 10.30am on 19 November 2025 and will hear all parties present regarding the terms of the final orders to be made including costs.

The costs hearing

18. The hearing proceeded on 9 December 2025. There was no appearance by the defendant. The plaintiff’s senior counsel, Ms McNally, sought an order for the plaintiff's costs. In circumstances where I was satisfied that the defendant had been duly notified of the hearing date (and of previously adjourned dates) I acceded to the plaintiff's application for costs, to include any reserve and/or discovery costs, to be adjudicated in default of agreement.

Approved.

Dated: 12/12/25