The High Court refused Garda Thomas Noonan’s application for judicial review of disciplinary findings and a sanction requiring him to resign or face dismissal. Mr Justice McKechnie delivered judgment on 17 July 2007. The case was decided on affidavit evidence, written submissions and oral legal argument; there was no oral evidence before the High Court.
A Garda disciplinary inquiry found Noonan in breach of four of 22 charges and not in breach of the other 18. The Commissioner accepted the inquiry’s recommendation that Noonan retire or resign as an alternative to dismissal, and required him to resign by midnight on 7 December 2004 or stand dismissed from then. The High Court considered Noonan’s challenge to the inquiry’s decision and recommendation and to the Commissioner’s sanction.
The court held that 14 charges had been added to the disciplinary form without first being notified to Noonan or investigated under the applicable regulations. The appointing officer had no authority to insert those new charges at that stage. The court said fair procedures would require a fresh investigation if other charges emerged. However, the inquiry found Noonan not in breach of any of the 14 additional charges. The judge concluded that their inclusion caused no detriment that invalidated the proceedings or decisions concerning the original eight charges, and that no relief could be granted on this ground.
Noonan also argued that the investigating officer had been appointed from the wrong Garda division under the force’s code. The court accepted that members could have a legitimate expectation that the code would be applied and concluded that the incidents underlying the original charges occurred in Cork. But it held that the statutory disciplinary regulations authorised a Chief Superintendent to appoint an investigating officer and took precedence over any conflicting code provision. It found no unfairness or prejudice in the appointment and rejected this ground.
The court also rejected challenges to the inquiry’s refusal to adjourn on 15 October 2004 and to its findings. A doctor’s report said Noonan was unfit to give evidence or attend because of sedation and vertigo. The judge held that the inquiry was entitled to proceed after considering the report and the circumstances, including Noonan’s attendance that day, his prepared statement, his answers under questioning and his legal representation. The court found credible evidence supporting the inquiry’s conclusions.
The judge also rejected the claim that the sanction was disproportionate, noting that the regulations authorised the recommendation and that a review could be sought under the disciplinary process. He refused the relief claimed. The judgment records the possibility of review through that process; it does not state whether Noonan sought one.