The High Court has refused an application by a senior Garda executive to stop the Minister for Justice acting on a recommendation that he be dismissed. The court did not decide whether he should be dismissed: that decision remained with the Minister, who was not bound by the Commissioner’s recommendation.
The judgment, delivered by Ms Justice Stack on 14 February 2022, concerned an interlocutory injunction sought by John Barrett, Executive Director of Human Resources and People Development in An Garda Síochána. He argued that disciplinary proceedings against him were unlawful retaliation for protected disclosures and raised separate objections to the fairness and legality of the process.
The disciplinary process began after a formal complaint by retired Assistant Commissioner Fintan Fanning. The Commissioner later added complaints about letters Barrett sent on 29 June, 1 August and 20 August 2018. An independent senior counsel investigated and reported in November 2020 that Barrett was guilty of serious misconduct. Barrett withdrew from the investigation before giving evidence. He did not attend the disciplinary meeting or appeal the Commissioner’s recommendation to the Civil Service Disciplinary Appeals Board. The Commissioner’s report recommended dismissal; the Minister could still consider representations from Barrett before deciding whether to accept it.
On the protected-disclosure claim, the judge found no serious or fair question to be tried that the three letters were protected disclosures under the Protected Disclosures Act 2014. The 29 June letter was principally a complaint about how the investigation was being handled and lacked sufficiently specific factual information. The August letters included an assertion that Fanning had said he had made no complaint, but the judge found no reasonable basis for Barrett to believe that this showed oppression by those conducting the process. The court also found no evidence linking earlier disclosures, including evidence to the Public Accounts Committee, to the disciplinary proceedings. The judge said delay in seeking interim relief was an additional reason to refuse it.
The court separately considered challenges to the disciplinary procedure, applying the higher threshold for an injunction that would effectively continue an employment relationship after trust and confidence had been lost. It rejected the arguments that the Commissioner lacked authority to begin the process, that the investigator could not assess serious misconduct, and that the investigation’s terms or handling warranted an injunction. It also found no evidential basis for the alleged media leak. The independent investigator and the unexercised appeal to the Appeals Board were relevant safeguards, the judge said.
The application was refused. The court listed the case for an early hearing on when the defendants’ existing undertakings should be withdrawn or discharged and on the costs of the application.