The High Court has allowed Raymond Hegarty to cross-examine Chief Superintendent Margaret Nugent on the relationship between a Garda Commissioner’s section 14 process and earlier disciplinary proceedings against him. The ruling concerns an evidence-gathering motion in Hegarty’s judicial review challenge; it does not decide whether the Commissioner may dismiss him.
Mr Justice Niamh Hyland said the permitted questioning would be limited to the interaction between the section 14 procedure and the process under the Garda Síochána (Discipline) Regulations. She found there was a factual dispute about whether the two processes were separate and distinct, and that the issue could not justly be decided without cross-examination.
The challenge follows disciplinary proceedings arising from a complaint of misbehaviour in March 2017. Hegarty admitted the alleged breaches, which included discreditable conduct and neglect of duty. A Board of Inquiry recommended that he retire or resign instead of being dismissed for one breach, and a pay deduction for the other. On appeal, the first penalty was reduced to a four-week pay deduction; the second remained unchanged.
In March 2020, the Commissioner wrote that Hegarty’s conduct, including alleged inappropriate sexual conduct at Lismore Garda station, could undermine public confidence and that dismissal under section 14 was necessary to maintain it. The letter invited Hegarty to make representations before any final decision. The judgment records that no submissions had been made at the time it was delivered.
Hegarty’s judicial review proceedings challenge, among other matters, the Commissioner’s entitlement to use section 14 after the disciplinary process and the way the procedure was carried out. The Commissioner’s response said section 14 was initiated independently and was a separate process. Justice Hyland said the record did not make clear how the Commissioner obtained the information behind the preliminary conclusions in his letter.
The judge refused permission to cross-examine on the reason given in a February 2020 suspension notice. The respondent said that reason was erroneous and that the suspension was for consideration of Hegarty’s position under section 14. The judge found no conflicting evidence from Hegarty on that point to resolve through questioning.
The court also rejected hearsay as a separate basis for cross-examination and declined to permit questioning about the legal character of the March letter. It dismissed the respondent’s objection based on delay. The judge proposed that the respondent pay the costs of the motion, stayed in the usual way pending trial, subject to any submissions on costs within two weeks.