The Supreme Court has allowed an appeal by the Minister for Justice, Ireland and the Attorney General, overturning a High Court award of damages to a garda officer whose suspension lasted from December 1987 until January 1993.
The High Court had found that the suspension became unlawful after December 1988 because the disciplinary process had been negligently prolonged. It awarded £12,199.04 for financial loss and £40,000 for distress, anxiety and disruption to the officer’s enjoyment of life.
In a judgment delivered on 2 May 2003, Murray J said the case differed from *Flynn v An Post*, on which the High Court had relied. In *Flynn*, an employee was suspended without pay, faced severe hardship and had pressed for the disciplinary inquiry to proceed. Here, the officer received two thirds of his basic pay during suspension and had repeatedly sought court orders stopping disciplinary inquiries.
The Supreme Court said the Garda Commissioner was entitled to suspend the officer while disciplinary proceedings were being pursued. The inquiries had been delayed amid litigation between the parties, including successful judicial review applications that restricted how the disciplinary process could proceed. The court held that delay caused by those proceedings did not, by itself, make the suspension unlawful. It found no arbitrary or wanton refusal by the authorities to proceed with an inquiry when there was no obstacle to doing so.
The court also rejected the basis for the negligence finding. The High Court had relied on errors in the handling of the disciplinary process that led to judicial review orders. Murray J said those errors did not, by themselves, establish negligence. The claimant had to show a failure to exercise reasonable care by reference to a recognised duty, and the Supreme Court found no other material on which negligence could be established.
The court did not decide whether the authorities owed the officer the particular duty of care alleged, saying that issue had not been properly raised or argued. It also did not address the appeal arguments about amendment of the statement of claim or the limitation period, because it was unnecessary to do so. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal.