The Supreme Court has allowed an appeal by two Garda sergeants who challenged disciplinary proceedings arising from the detention of Derek Fairbrother at Finglas Garda Station in June 1988.
Sergeants Christopher McCarthy and John Dennedy had sought judicial review of procedures conducted under the Garda Síochána (Complaints) Act 1986. Their challenge followed a complaint alleging that Mr Fairbrother had been wrongfully arrested, imprisoned and seriously assaulted before being taken to hospital.
After an investigation, the Garda Síochána Complaints Board referred different but related disciplinary allegations to a tribunal. Sergeant McCarthy was accused of failing to ensure prompt medical treatment and hospitalisation after initially calling an ambulance. Sergeant Dennedy was accused of failing, without good cause, to allow Mr Fairbrother to be visited promptly by his family.
The two sergeants argued that those allegations were outside the scope of the original complaint because it had focused on wrongful arrest, detention and assault rather than medical treatment or family access.
Mr Justice Murray rejected that argument. He held that a public complaint under the 1986 Act was not equivalent to a formal charge and did not have to specify every possible disciplinary breach. The investigation could examine conduct connected with the events complained of, with precise charges required only later at the adjudication stage.
The judge found that both disputed allegations were sufficiently connected to Mr Fairbrother’s treatment while in Garda custody. Questions about medical attention and family access arose directly from the circumstances of his detention and alleged injuries.
However, that did not determine the appeal overall. Mr Justice Murray recorded that he had read Mr Justice Geoghegan’s separate judgment on delay and agreed with it. He therefore agreed that the appeal should be allowed on that ground.
The supplied judgment does not set out Mr Justice Geoghegan’s reasoning on delay, so the precise basis on which the disciplinary process was ultimately halted is not contained in this text.