The High Court refused a Garda officer’s application to stop a disciplinary inquiry into allegations arising from an incident at a swimming pool in November 1999. The court did not decide whether the alleged conduct occurred. It found that some delay in serving the disciplinary papers had not been handled as soon as practicable, but held that the officer had contributed to the delay and had not shown specific prejudice sufficient to justify stopping the process.
The judicial review application challenged the Commissioner of An Garda Síochána’s decision to hold a sworn inquiry. The officer sought an order prohibiting the inquiry or, alternatively, an injunction and declarations concerning delay and fair procedures. The allegations were that he bent one boy’s finger backwards and slapped another across the face with a folder. He denied assaulting the boys and said his own son had been bullied. The judgment expressly said it was not for the court to determine which account was credible.
A formal complaint under the Garda Síochána Complaints Act was found inadmissible because it was made outside the applicable time limit. The Commissioner then pursued an internal disciplinary inquiry under the 1989 regulations. An investigating officer was appointed in March 2002, submitted a report in July, and prepared documents for a sworn inquiry. The papers were served on the applicant in January 2003; in March he was notified that the inquiry was scheduled for 14 April.
The parties disputed whether the officer had represented that he would apologise unconditionally and whether he had hindered service of the papers. The court accepted that the Commissioner had grounds to believe an apology would be made, and treated the relevant delay as beginning when the failure to apologise became known in February 2002. It considered the investigation period to the July report lengthy but not inordinate.
The court found the later service period was partly attributable to the officer’s conduct and partly to the authorities’ failure to serve him at home while he was ill. It also identified a five-week period when he was at work during which service could have been attempted. That part of the process, the court said, had not been handled as soon as practicable. To the extent the delay was inordinate, however, the court considered it excusable; it also said the officer’s conduct disentitled him from relying on the further delay. The court found no specific prejudice and refused the application. The judgment does not report the outcome of the sworn inquiry.