The High Court has set aside permission previously granted to John Mulligan to challenge disciplinary findings and his dismissal from An Garda Síochána by judicial review.
Ms Justice Siobhán Phelan held that Mulligan had an extensive statutory appeal available under the Garda Síochána (Discipline) Regulations 2007 and that his complaints should have been pursued through that process first.
Mulligan joined An Garda Síochána in 2019. During his probationary period, allegations arose concerning sexual activity with a 17-year-old female and driving after consuming alcohol. He denied rape during a cautioned interview but admitted consensual sexual activity and driving after drinking. The Director of Public Prosecutions directed in April 2022 that no criminal prosecution be brought.
A later disciplinary process resulted in a Board of Inquiry finding four breaches of discipline proved. These concerned sexual activity with a person believed to be intoxicated on two occasions, driving while intoxicated, and using Garda credentials to obtain a sexual favour or advantage. The Board recommended dismissal on each breach, and the Commissioner accepted those recommendations on March 18, 2026.
Mulligan obtained High Court leave on March 30 to challenge the Board's report and the dismissal decision. The question of whether the internal appeal was an adequate alternative remedy was expressly left open.
Ms Justice Phelan has now ruled that the appeal mechanism could address alleged procedural unfairness, evidential shortcomings, factual findings and the proportionality of dismissal. She also rejected the argument that the complainant's withdrawal from the criminal investigation created a jurisdictional flaw in the disciplinary process.
The judge relied on recent Supreme Court decisions emphasising that statutory appeals should ordinarily be exhausted before judicial review is pursued.
Although Mulligan's attempted disciplinary appeal was filed late and an extension was refused, the court held that an adequate remedy does not become inadequate because a litigant failed to invoke it in time.
The leave order will therefore be set aside, with final orders to follow.