The High Court found that Garda authorities breached disciplinary regulations by delaying an investigation into alleged mishandling of lost property at Kevin Street Garda Station. The court said the delay was inordinate and inexcusable and indicated that it was disposed to grant relief to Garda Mark Gibbons. It did not specify the order: it said it would hear submissions on the appropriate form.
The disciplinary allegations concern nine bags of valuable stones handed in as found property on 19 September 2001. The stones went missing while in Garda custody. Gibbons, then the member in charge of property at the station, was alleged to have been negligent and to have failed to record the items properly or issue a proper receipt. These were allegations, not findings in this judicial review.
The owner, Alan Harper, first made inquiries in November 2003. After Garda inquiries failed to locate the stones, he made a formal complaint in July 2004 and wrote to the Garda Commissioner in October. A Chief Superintendent appointed an inspector to conduct a preliminary investigation in November 2004. The formal disciplinary investigation began on 8 July 2005, and Gibbons was charged in November that year. He denied the charges. Before a disciplinary inquiry took place, he sought judicial review to stop the proceedings, arguing that the delay breached the regulations and undermined his ability to defend himself.
The court rejected the respondent’s preliminary objection that Gibbons had waited too long to seek judicial review. On the main issue, it held that the regulations required an investigating officer to be appointed once it appeared there might have been a disciplinary breach. A comprehensive investigation to identify the responsible member was not required before making that appointment.
The judge did not find that the delay began on 6 January 2004, when information was available to the district superintendent. He considered that a brief background report should have taken no more than eight weeks, allowing until the end of December 2004. Delay followed after that point. The court accepted that the Chief Superintendent had acted conscientiously and in good faith, but found that he had misunderstood the required process.
Relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in McNeill, the court concluded that the delay meant the respondent had not complied with the regulations, particularly Regulation 8. It was therefore disposed to grant the relief sought, while leaving the precise order for a further hearing.