The High Court has refused Sinéad Sheridan’s application for judicial review of the order retiring her from An Garda Síochána on medical grounds. Mr Justice Brian McGovern delivered judgment on 21 March 2007.
Sheridan was attached to the National Surveillance Unit when she was injured in a car accident while on duty on 25 September 1998. After reviewing her health and arranging examinations by specialists, the Chief Medical Officer told her on 4 February 2004 that he considered she should be medically retired. He invited her to provide further medical reports within six weeks if she or her treating doctors disagreed.
The Chief Medical Officer later certified her medically unfit for further service, citing “chronic reactive depression”. On 23 April 2004, the Commissioner made a retirement order based on that certificate, effective from 17 May 2004. Sheridan was granted leave to seek judicial review, including an order quashing the retirement order.
Her principal complaint was that she had not received the reports and information underlying the retirement decision and had not been given a proper opportunity to address the case against her. The judgment records that her solicitors had sought reports for her personal injuries proceedings arising from the accident. The court also noted medical material from those proceedings describing a major depressive illness requiring treatment. That information had not been disclosed in her application for leave to seek judicial review.
The judge said the Chief Medical Officer’s certificate was an assessment of health, rather than an accusation or a case the applicant had to meet. He found that Sheridan had been offered an opportunity to submit medical evidence opposing the recommendation but had not done so before the retirement order was made. The court also found that the medical assessment had not been challenged as irrational or unsupported.
The judge considered Sheridan’s failure to disclose the earlier medical material when seeking leave, finding that she had not shown the good faith and candour required in an ex parte judicial review application. He also concluded that the procedures were not incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights, an issue on which no argument had been pursued at the hearing.
The court found no irrationality or failure to provide a reasonable opportunity to present her medical case. It refused the relief sought; the judgment does not state that the retirement order was quashed.