THE HIGH COURT has cleared the way for Dublin man James Walsh to sue the State for malicious prosecution.

Mr Walsh claims he is the victim of a malicious prosecution arising out of his trial for allegedly threatening to kill and threatening to cause serious harm to journalist Paul Williams.

Mr Walsh was acquitted, following two trials, of the charges by a jury in 2007. In a judgment today Mr Justice Paul Gilligan declined an application by the State and the Garda Commissioner to dismiss Mr Walsh’s claim for a want of prosecution and inordinate delay.

While there had been a delay in advancing the case, the judge said no prejudice had been shown and the action should be allowed to proceed to hearing before a judge and jury.

In his action Mr Walsh claims he was prosecuted for matters that never occurred, which the State authorities knew from the beginning had not occurred, and were impossible for him to commit.

He has sued both the Garda Commissioner, Ireland and the Attorney General, seeking punitive and exemplary damages for what he claims was the malicious and wholly corrupt actions of the defendants.

The claims are denied. The defendants say the claim is “speculative in nature,” and Mr Walsh is “making unsubstantiated allegations against the Gardai.” It was the DPP and not the Gardai who decided to prosecute Mr Walsh, the defendants add.

In a pretrial motion the State and the Commissioner contended inordinate delay and asked the High Court to strike out the claim by Mr Walsh, of Dunmore Park, Kingswood Heights, Dublin 24.

The State parties argued Mr Walsh failed to progress his civil action with expedition. He served a statement of claim in October 2009, two years after his acquittal. A defence was filed in July 2010. On two occasions since Mr Walsh failed to attend court resulting in his notice of trial being struck out, the defendants argued.

Mr Walsh had advanced reasons for the delay, such as his failure to get legal representation until 2014, and health problems. These reasons, were not accepted by the defendants as a reason for the delay.

Opposing the motion Mr Walsh, represented by solicitor Anne Fitzgibbon, argued even if there had been a delay the balance of justice favoured allowing the case go to trial. The defendants had not shown any prejudice to them as a result of any alleged delay, she added.

Today in his judgment Mr Justice Gilligan said he was satisfied that the delay in this case was inordinate and inexcusable. The judge said no allowance could be made for the period of time Mr Walsh did not have a solicitor.

No valid reason had been given for the delay in the prosecution of the claim.

However the Judge said he was not satisfied the defendant’s capacity to meet the claim and advance their defence had been compromised by the delay to the extent that a fair trial was in peril.

Looking at the conduct of both sides the reality of the situation the defendants delayed in delivering their defence to the claim until after a motion for judgment in default of defence was issued by Mr Walsh. The judge also said the defence could have sought to have the case struck out much earlier that they did.

The judge said the court had to consider the actions of both parties in the litigation. In the absence of any indication of any prejudice in the particular circumstances and having regards to the issue of fairness between the parties “it does seem appropriate” the orders sought by the defendants “be declined.”

Mr Justice Gilligan said it appeared that these proceedings should be brought on for hearing at the earliest possible opportunity.