The High Court has restrained the Minister for Justice and Equality from dismissing John Barrett for three months, giving him time to ask the Court of Appeal for protection while his appeal is pending. The order does not decide the appeal or prevent the Minister from considering the Garda Commissioner’s dismissal recommendation after that period.
In a judgment delivered on 15 March 2022, Ms Justice Stack said the limited injunction was intended to avoid the risk that Mr Barrett could be dismissed before his appeal was heard, making the appeal moot. The judge said the three-month period should allow him to seek a hearing date or interim relief from the Court of Appeal.
The application followed the judge’s principal decision on 14 February 2022, when she refused an injunction against dismissal pending the underlying proceedings. Mr Barrett had framed his latest request as one to continue undertakings given by the defendants. The judge treated it instead as an application for an interim injunction pending appeal.
The principal decision had rejected his request for interlocutory relief on two strands of argument. The judge found no serious question to be tried on whether the disciplinary proceedings themselves amounted to detriment for making protected disclosures. She also found he had not met the higher threshold for an injunction based on alleged wider defects in the disciplinary process. As an alternative ground on the protected-disclosure strand, she found significant delay: the Commissioner’s complaints were notified in October 2018, but proceedings began in July 2020 and no injunction application was made until December 2020.
In considering protection pending appeal, the judge said she did not believe the proposed appeal could succeed on the claim that she had required proof of the Commissioner’s state of mind. She said her earlier assessment had focused on the objective circumstances surrounding the disciplinary process. She also noted that the investigator had found the letters at issue constituted “serious misconduct”; the Minister would decide whether to accept the Commissioner’s recommendation under the Civil Service disciplinary framework.
The judgment did not determine whether the disciplinary process was unlawful after a full trial, nor whether Mr Barrett would ultimately be dismissed. It said the Minister would consider the investigator’s report and the relevant manager’s report, rather than decide whether the procedures amounted to detriment under the Protected Disclosures Act.
On costs, the judge awarded the defendants the costs of the introductory injunction application, but stayed that order pending determination of the proceedings. She left open that evidence at trial could alter conclusions reached at the interlocutory stage.