The Court of Appeal has dismissed John Barrett’s appeal against the refusal of an interlocutory injunction aimed at stopping a disciplinary process against him, ruling that his delay in seeking relief was sufficient to refuse it.
Barrett, An Garda Síochána’s Executive Director of Human Resources and People Development, was suspended on full pay while an investigation examined complaints about his conduct. In December 2020, the Commissioner recommended that he be dismissed. The Minister had not decided whether to accept that recommendation when the appeal judgment was delivered. An undertaking from the respondents kept Barrett in his post, on full pay, pending the appeal.
Barrett began legal proceedings in July 2020, but did not apply for an interlocutory injunction until December 30, after the investigator had reported and the Commissioner had recommended dismissal. The Court of Appeal said he had known of the disciplinary process since May 2018, participated in the investigation for about 20 months, and waited roughly six months after starting proceedings to seek the injunction.
The court said Barrett’s central arguments challenged the disciplinary process at its roots, alleging, among other things, that it was fundamentally unfair and linked to protected disclosures. Because those claims, if accepted, could not be cured by allowing the process to continue, the court said the usual concern that an injunction application might be premature did not prevent him from applying earlier. It upheld the High Court’s view that the delay itself justified refusing relief. The appeal was dismissed.
The judgment also addressed, without determining the underlying claims, the statutory presumption that a communication is a protected disclosure unless the contrary is proved. It said respondents seeking to rebut that presumption at the interlocutory stage had to establish on the balance of probabilities that a communication was not protected.
The court agreed that Barrett’s June 2018 letter to a senior Garda official lacked the information needed to qualify as a protected disclosure. It disagreed with aspects of the High Court’s analysis of two letters Barrett sent in August 2018, saying the evidence did not allow a definitive conclusion on whether he had a reasonable belief of wrongdoing or whether the letters contained relevant information. Those issues remain for consideration at the substantive hearing.
The court upheld the High Court’s finding that Barrett had not established a connection between four earlier communications about Templemore and Maurice McCabe-related matters and the disciplinary process. It did not decide the final merits of the protected-disclosure claims or whether those August letters were protected disclosures.