The Supreme Court has quashed the Commissioner of An Garda Síochána’s decision to dismiss Sergeant Martha McEnery, finding that the Commissioner gave no adequate reasons for confirming the proposed dismissal after considering her submissions.
In a judgment delivered on 15 November 2016, the court held that the Commissioner’s letter of 25 March 2013 did not explain why the breach of discipline merited dismissal, why an inquiry would not produce a different sanction, or why McEnery was unfit to remain in the force. The court said the dismissal decision could not take effect without the Minister for Justice and Equality’s consent; that final stage had not been reached.
McEnery had been convicted by a jury in Waterford Circuit Court in August 2011 of assault under section 2 of the Non-Fatal Offences Against the Person Act 1997. She was acquitted of the more serious charge of assault causing harm. In November 2011, she received a four-month prison sentence suspended for six months, subject to entering a bond to keep the peace and be of good behaviour. Her appeal against conviction was dismissed in October 2012.
The Commissioner issued a notice in December 2012 proposing summary dismissal under Regulation 39 of the Garda Síochána (Discipline) Regulations 2007. McEnery’s submissions argued, among other things, that the Commissioner had relied only on the conviction and sentence, and that an inquiry could consider a lesser sanction. The Commissioner confirmed the proposed dismissal in March 2013.
The Supreme Court rejected McEnery’s argument that the Commissioner breached Regulation 39 by treating the conviction and sentence as the only material facts. It held that, for the disciplinary breach relied on in this case, those were the material facts relevant to assessing whether dismissal was merited. The court also rejected her claim that she had been treated discriminatorily or disproportionately compared with other Garda members convicted of assault, finding she had not established that claim.
The ruling followed a High Court refusal of relief in 2014 and a Court of Appeal decision in 2015 that quashed the Commissioner’s decision for breach of Regulation 39. The Supreme Court reached the same result as the Court of Appeal, but on different grounds: inadequate reasons. It said the Commissioner may reconsider McEnery’s position under Regulation 39.