The High Court has refused an application by an unsuccessful candidate to halt the recruitment process for two Deputy Commissioners of An Garda Síochána while his legal action proceeds.
In a judgment delivered on 16 October 2015, Mr Justice David Keane held that the plaintiff had not established a fair question to be tried, the threshold issue for the interlocutory injunction he sought. The court also found that damages could adequately address the plaintiff’s claims if they succeeded, while an injunction could leave the State inadequately compensated if the claims later failed. The balance of convenience also weighed against granting the order.
The plaintiff, an Assistant Commissioner, had challenged the recruitment process organised by the Public Appointments Service (PAS). His underlying action sought declarations concerning alleged breaches of fair procedures and legitimate expectation, an injunction and damages. No statement of claim had been delivered by the time the injunction application was heard, so the judge noted that the claims had not been formally particularised.
A central complaint concerned an original candidate information booklet. It wrongly referred to review procedures under legislation and codes that did not apply to Government appointments. The PAS replaced the booklet with a corrected version, but did not contact people who had downloaded the original. The PAS chief executive apologised for that failure and offered an independent external review. The judge concluded that the plaintiff had not raised a fair issue concerning the further review procedure described in the original booklet, taking account of the legal error and the review offered.
The plaintiff also alleged that an interview-board member had improperly questioned him about his political views. The judge found his account too vague and inconsistent to establish a fair issue at this stage. He considered the question, as described in the plaintiff’s evidence, in the context of the role’s security responsibilities. The defendants disputed that the interview involved questions about personal political views. The judge said that factual disputes would ultimately be for the trial judge and that his ruling did not determine whether more specific evidence might be produced at trial.
Other complaints included alleged bias arising from the Commissioner’s previous operational decisions involving other candidates, the interview board’s training and assessment criteria, and the review process. The judge found no fair issue to be tried on those grounds either. His decision concerned only the request for an interlocutory injunction; the underlying action was not determined.