The Supreme Court quashed the dismissal of a Garda member arising from disciplinary proceedings over an incident at the Electric Picnic in 2007, and directed the Commissioner to establish a new board of inquiry.
In a judgment delivered by Ms Justice Laffoy on 23 April 2015, the Court quashed in its entirety the decision of the Second Appeal Board made on 20 August 2012, as well as the Commissioner’s order dismissing the member on 23 August 2012. The Court did not prohibit the disciplinary proceedings from continuing, nor did it decide whether the member committed the remaining alleged breach. It sent the matter back to the Commissioner to establish a new inquiry board.
The disciplinary case followed allegations about the member’s conduct at the festival at Stradbally Hall, County Laois, on 2 September 2007. Three allegations proceeded after a separate allegation that he possessed amphetamine was withdrawn following the dismissal of a District Court charge. The 2011 inquiry board found two breaches: discreditable conduct for allegedly refusing a drug search, and improper practice for allegedly identifying himself as a Garda to gain private advantage. It found no misconduct towards a Garda member. The board recommended dismissal for the two breaches, and the Commissioner ordered dismissal in March 2012.
On appeal, the Second Appeal Board affirmed the discreditable-conduct finding, quashed the improper-practice finding, and upheld the finding in the member’s favour on the misconduct allegation. Its written decision affirmed the Commissioner’s disciplinary action for the first breach and quashed it for the second, while also recommending dismissal for the first. The Commissioner then made a fresh dismissal order in August 2012.
The Supreme Court rejected the High Court’s conclusion that the appeal board lacked power to affirm one breach finding while quashing another. But it accepted the member’s separate argument about the sanction: because the Commissioner’s March 2012 dismissal decision expressly covered both breaches, the appeal board could not affirm that decision in respect of just one after quashing the other. The appeal board’s decision was also ambiguous about whether it was deciding the sanction or recommending it.
The Court further observed that the appeal board’s reason for affirming the discreditable-conduct finding—that the inquiry evidence was “credible and consistent”—was inadequate. The appeal board had heard additional evidence from the member and faced arguments about what “legal drug search” meant in the allegation. The Court said the issue was not so narrow or self-evident that the decision itself explained the result.
The new inquiry board is to determine whether a serious breach of discipline was committed on the same basis as the 2011 board, and, if so, recommend disciplinary action to the Commissioner. The Supreme Court did not restrict the new board’s remit to a single allegation.