The High Court has refused a Garda superintendent’s application for an order that would have lifted his suspension while criminal and disciplinary investigations continued.
Mr Justice Allen delivered the decision on 11 September 2020, refusing the motion in its entirety. The application sought mandatory interlocutory relief requiring the Commissioner of An Garda Síochána to restore the superintendent to duty. The court said that required a strong case likely to succeed at trial, not merely an issue to be tried.
The superintendent had been suspended on pay under the Garda Síochána (Discipline) Regulations 2007. An order made on 27 April 2020 continued his suspension on three grounds: alleged disclosure of confidential information about a Garda investigation; alleged conduct at Hurlers Bar in January 2019; and alleged inappropriate interference with fixed charge penalty notices and related court summonses.
These were allegations and matters under investigation, not findings of guilt. The court did not determine whether they were true. It held that the superintendent had not shown a strong case that the current suspension was invalid or that the Commissioner lacked a proper basis to consider it desirable in the interests of An Garda Síochána.
The judge accepted that the investigation into the alleged disclosure had taken a long time, but found that the superintendent had not established that it had been conducted without due expedition. The court also considered the Hurlers Bar disciplinary inquiry and the investigation into penalty notices and summonses. It found that the allegations in those matters could independently provide grounds for suspension while the processes continued.
The court rejected arguments that procedural complaints, the effect of suspension on the superintendent’s health, or requests for information under an EU directive entitled him to the orders sought. It also refused discovery of records relating to the suspension orders, finding that no intelligible argument had been made for it.
A separate request to restrain the Commissioner from communicating information about the superintendent to third parties or the media was also refused. The evidence did not establish that the Commissioner was responsible for the reported disclosures or that there was a threat to publish further information.
The court’s ruling concerned interim relief in the civil proceedings. It did not decide the underlying criminal investigations or disciplinary processes. The judge said the parties should file brief written submissions on costs within three weeks if they could not agree.