The High Court has set aside the appointment of a second Garda disciplinary inquiry into allegations concerning items removed from an impounded vehicle, ruling that a first inquiry’s decision to end proceedings because evidence was insufficient amounted to a final determination that the allegations were unproven.
In a judgment delivered on 8 November 2024, Mr Justice Garrett Simons held that the doctrine of res judicata prevented the same alleged breaches from being put before a second board of inquiry. The applicant, Garda Adrian Ivers, had sought judicial review of the Assistant Commissioner’s decision on 5 October 2023 to appoint that board.
The allegations arose from an incident in January 2020 at a Garda station. The judgment says Mr Ivers accepted that he removed a Bluetooth speaker and cables or leads from an impounded motor vehicle and took them home for safekeeping, intending to return them when next on duty. The allegation was that the removal was improper and that he intended to keep the items for his own use. The Director of Public Prosecutions directed that no charges be brought. GSOC later recommended disciplinary proceedings for alleged discreditable conduct, neglect of duty and misuse of property in Garda custody.
A first board of inquiry was established in March 2023. Its statutory report said it lacked sufficient information and supporting documentation to deal with the matter properly. At a short hearing in June, the board returned its file to Internal Affairs and said it would not proceed. The court noted that the board did not adjourn to seek further evidence or use its powers to require witnesses or documents; instead, it brought the inquiry to a conclusion.
The Commissioner argued that the board had made no determination on the merits and that the absence of oral evidence showed there had been no adjudication. The judge rejected those submissions. He concluded that the report’s stated reason meant the board had determined, on the evidence available, that the alleged breaches were unproven. The decision was final and sufficiently engaged with the merits to prevent a second inquiry, even though there had been no full hearing.
The judgment is limited to the circumstances in which this board ended its inquiry after finding the evidence insufficient. It does not establish that a board can never adjourn to allow further evidence. The court said an order of certiorari would issue setting aside the decision to appoint the second board. Whether a prohibition order should also restrain further proceedings arising from the January 2020 events, and the question of legal costs, were left for submissions scheduled for 19 November 2024.