The High Court has ruled that the Irish Aviation Authority’s suspension of Irish Parachute Club chief instructor Paul McMahon became invalid because it lasted more than a year without a prompt, fair hearing.
In a judgment delivered on 9 September 2014, Mr Justice Hogan said the Authority could take urgent action to protect public safety, including initially suspending Mr McMahon while it investigated complaints. But the suspension, imposed in February 2013, remained in place until the hearing in June 2014. The judge concluded that it had become invalid and was no longer operative.
The Authority’s concerns arose from three incidents and failures to report them. Edward de Khors was injured in a hard landing after a parachute jump on 15 July 2012, suffering a broken ankle and torn ligaments. A separate complaint concerned a parachutist injured in August 2012. The Authority also investigated a low-flying manoeuvre by an Irish Parachute Club aircraft over its clubhouse and car park on 1 January 2013. The Club later denied that the manoeuvre was reckless.
The Authority was also concerned that the incidents had not been reported as required by the Club’s operating licence. Mr McMahon apologised for the reporting omission and said he had misunderstood the requirement.
The Authority suspended Mr McMahon and another post-holder after a meeting on 19 February 2013. Mr McMahon had not received advance notice of the low-flying complaint, which was raised at the meeting. The judge said advance notice of specific concerns would normally be required, but found that the need for urgent action in the interests of aviation safety justified the initial suspension despite shortcomings in the procedures.
However, Mr Justice Hogan found that the suspension could not continue indefinitely. Its length prejudiced Mr McMahon, including by affecting his good name and prospects of returning to the post. The judge also found that one key reason given by the Authority—that Mr McMahon’s weather and safety decisions may have been driven by commercial considerations—was not factually sustainable in its then-present form. The de Khors complaint itself recorded that Mr McMahon had warned jumpers of approaching bad weather.
The ruling concerned the validity of the suspension. The judge held that the Authority was entitled to act summarily at first, but should then have arranged a fuller hearing, with fair procedures and adequate notice, within a relatively short time. That had not happened, so the suspension was no longer operative.