Judgment: 2009-02-20 · Court archive

High Court halts Garda disciplinary case against Tullamore sergeant over excessive delay

High Court · [2009] IEHC 89

Who, what, where, when and why

Who
  • John Kneafsey
  • Sean O’Brien
  • Peter Wheeler
What

High Court halts Garda disciplinary case against Tullamore sergeant over excessive delay

Where

Places mentioned in the report

  • Clara, County Offaly
  • High Court
When

Judgment:

Why

Reasons reported in the judgment

The High Court has halted disciplinary proceedings against Garda Sergeant John Kneafsey after finding that the investigation into complaints against him was conducted with excessive delay.

The High Court has halted disciplinary proceedings against Garda Sergeant John Kneafsey after finding that the investigation into complaints against him was conducted with excessive delay.

The case arose from events dating to August 2001, when Kneafsey was stationed in Clara, County Offaly. Sean O’Brien reported that his dog had been poisoned and was later admitted to hospital. Kneafsey investigated the alleged poisoning, obtained a container said to hold strychnine and brought it to the hospital.

After further inquiries, Kneafsey came to doubt that O’Brien had been poisoned in the manner alleged. O’Brien later made a statement but did not provide a requested medical report. Kneafsey ultimately decided not to prosecute any of those involved and instead cautioned the parties.

Nothing further happened until March 2005, when O’Brien complained to Superintendent Peter Wheeler that Kneafsey had not prosecuted the suspected culprits. A formal complaint followed in August 2005.

An investigating officer was appointed on August 18. Statements were then gathered over several months. In June 2006, Kneafsey was charged internally with neglect of duty over his handling of the original complaint and with disobedience of an order for failing to answer repeated correspondence from his superintendent.

Mr Justice O’Neill held that the disciplinary regulations imposed a mandatory duty to investigate alleged breaches “as soon as practicable”. He found the delay between the March 2005 complaint and the start of the formal investigation in August grossly excessive.

The court also criticised the subsequent pace of the inquiry. Statements were gathered intermittently between September 2005 and May 2006, followed by further delays before charges and a hearing date were set.

The judge said the age of the underlying 2001 events required greater, not lesser, urgency once a complaint was finally made. He also noted that O’Brien himself had waited about three years before expressing dissatisfaction.

The High Court therefore granted the relief sought and stopped the disciplinary inquiry from proceeding.

Read the original court judgment

Something looks wrong?

Highlight the relevant passage or flag this article for review. Review requests do not immediately change the report.

Email a correction request

Request a review