The High Court refused a Garda sergeant’s application to stop an internal inquiry into a colleague’s complaint of harassment based on sexual orientation. Mr Justice Hedigan held that the investigation could proceed and that the sergeant was not entitled to the judicial review remedies he sought.
The complaint arose from events in 2008, when the sergeant was in charge of a unit at Ballyfermot Garda Station and directly supervised the colleague who made the complaint. Among the allegations put to him were that he sent messages referring to “the Fez”, asked the colleague whether she enjoyed a search of a female prisoner, and attached a folded paper bearing the words “FAG 1” to a car in which she was travelling. These were allegations under investigation; the High Court was not deciding whether they were true.
An earlier judicial review ended in a consent order in February 2009. That order quashed the appointment of an investigating officer under the Garda Síochána (Discipline) Regulations and prohibited further investigation under that process until the Garda harassment policy had been exhausted. The investigation was then discontinued and restarted under the policy. A second judicial review application followed, and interim relief stayed the investigation while the court considered the sergeant’s challenge.
The sergeant argued that the renewed inquiry was unfair because it reused witness statements from the earlier investigation, took too long, and gave him insufficient time to respond. The Garda Commissioner’s side said the statements had been read to witnesses, who could amend them, and that the sergeant had opportunities to take legal advice and make written submissions.
The judge found that the policy’s time limits were guidelines, not statutory rules, and did not account for the earlier court proceedings. He rejected the delay claim, noting that the sergeant had not shown resulting prejudice. The court also found that he had been offered time to respond and later sought an extension through his solicitor.
The February 2009 order did not require witness statements to be destroyed, the judge held. Given evidence that the statements were read to their makers and could be amended, their reuse did not breach fair procedures. The sergeant had been informed of the complaint and given an opportunity to answer it. The court refused the application; it did not determine the underlying harassment allegations.