The High Court has refused a Garda sergeant’s application for judicial review of his suspension after finding that the Assistant Commissioner had given adequate reasons for the decision.
Mr Justice Rory Mulcahy ruled on 12 June 2023 that the explanation for suspending Desmond Brannock was sufficient in the circumstances. The court granted leave to pursue the relevant judicial review grounds but refused the application for judicial review itself.
Brannock, a sergeant based at Store Street Garda Station, had been suspended after his arrest and charge on 4 November 2022 over an alleged offence under the Road Traffic Act 2010. The allegation was that he was drunk in charge of a vehicle with intent to drive on Kilcullen Road outside Naas. He was off duty and was not in a Garda vehicle. The judgment records that he has not been convicted of the offence.
An Assistant Commissioner suspended him from 14 December 2022 to 1 February 2023. The notice said the suspension arose from the circumstances of his arrest and the resulting District Court prosecution. Before that decision, the sergeant’s Divisional Officer and a senior officer in Internal Affairs had recommended against suspension. Assistant Commissioner Jonathan Roberts disagreed, citing the seriousness of the allegation and the potential risk to the public if it were proved.
The sergeant initially challenged the suspension on other grounds, including the Assistant Commissioner’s power to impose it for more than 10 days. Those grounds were not pursued at the hearing. The court said there was no breach of the relevant regulation: the 10-day limit applied to suspensions imposed by Chief Superintendents, while the decision here was made by an Assistant Commissioner exercising delegated authority.
The central issue at the hearing was whether adequate reasons had been given. The court said the notice’s reference to the arrest and prosecution gave the sergeant sufficient notice of the basis for suspension. It also considered the Assistant Commissioner’s earlier letter, which referred to the senior officers’ recommendations and explained why he disagreed. The court said the decision-maker was entitled to weigh the relevant factors and reach his own decision.
The judge found that the sergeant’s suspension had lasted five weeks when he began proceedings. It had since been renewed, and disciplinary proceedings were being held in abeyance with his consent pending the criminal case. The court said these circumstances did not create a heightened obligation to provide reasons, though the suspension decision still had to be reasoned and explained.
The court proposed that the sergeant receive his costs up to 21 February 2023 and that the respondent receive costs from 22 February onwards, subject to written submissions on a different order. The judgment records this as a proposed costs order, not a final determination.