The High Court has refused a retired Garda’s application to overturn disciplinary decisions arising from his failure to explain why he attended a criminal trial while off duty.
In a judgment delivered on 11 April 2014, Ms Justice Iseult O’Malley held that Garda authorities were entitled to ask John Wilson about his presence at Cavan Courthouse and to expect an adequate response. The case concerned whether a serving Garda could face discipline for failing to account for off-duty activity.
The background was a long-running neighbours’ dispute in an estate in Virginia, Co Cavan. On 12 January 2012, four people from both sides of the dispute faced harassment charges at a special sitting of Virginia District Court in Cavan Courthouse. After hearing one witness, the District Judge dismissed the charges. The accused and one accused person’s spouse gave voluntary sworn undertakings.
A prosecuting officer reported that Wilson, then stationed in Clones, Co Monaghan, had sat beside two defendants during the hearing while out of uniform. A Chief Superintendent directed Wilson to report on his attendance. Wilson repeatedly sought clarification about what the report implied and asked for the relevant correspondence and regulations. He did not explain why he was at court.
The first respondent, appointed as Deciding Officer, found Wilson in breach of discipline for failing to respond to the directions and imposed advice for one breach and a warning for the other. A second respondent reviewed and affirmed those decisions. Wilson sought judicial review, asking the High Court to quash them and declare them ultra vires the Garda Síochána (Discipline) Regulations 2007. Other constitutional and human-rights grounds were not pursued at the hearing.
Wilson’s counsel accepted that his replies did not answer the request, but argued that the statutory duty to account applied to conduct while on duty and that he could not be compelled to explain off-duty activity without a specific suspicion of misconduct. The respondents argued that an explanation could properly be sought because off-duty conduct can raise disciplinary concerns.
Justice O’Malley held that the statutory provision on accounting for on-duty conduct did not exclude a duty to respond to lawful inquiries about off-duty conduct. Attendance at a public criminal court hearing was not, on its face, private. She added that a member who considered the requested information private should explain that concern and provide enough information for superiors to assess it.
The judge said the ruling did not mean that supporting a party at a trial would necessarily amount to misconduct. In Wilson’s case, however, he had not explained why he was there or given grounds beyond being off duty for treating the matter as private. The court refused the relief sought. It did not make a finding that Wilson had committed misconduct by attending the hearing.