The Supreme Court quashed the decision that had left Garda John Kelly’s dismissal from An Garda Síochána in force, and directed the original Board of Inquiry to give reasons for its findings. The case is to proceed from that point; the Court did not decide whether the disciplinary findings were correct or order Kelly’s reinstatement.
The judgment, delivered by O’Donnell J on 5 November 2013, concerned disciplinary proceedings arising from a September 2009 after-hours inspection at Monica’s licensed premises in Drumshanbo, County Leitrim. Kelly said he entered the premises. The licensee’s wife and other people said he did not. A taxi driver supported Kelly’s account.
The dispute led to six misconduct findings by a Board of Inquiry, including allegations of falsehood in three statements and discreditable conduct. The Board recommended dismissal on four counts and lesser pay reductions on two. The Commissioner accepted the recommendation and dismissed Kelly in August 2011. In March 2012, the Appeal Board refused to consider his appeal, stating on a form that it was “without substance or foundation”.
Kelly sought judicial review in the High Court, which refused relief. On appeal, the Supreme Court held that the inquiry board was required under the disciplinary regulations to explain its findings, unless the issue was so narrow and self-evident that the decision itself disclosed the reason. That exception did not apply here. The Court said the case involved disputed evidence and questions about the significance of a statement taken from the licensee’s wife three days after the incident, before Kelly made his first statement. The statement’s existence had not been disclosed during the investigation and emerged at the inquiry hearing.
The Court also held that an Appeal Board refusing an appeal under Regulation 35(2) had to give reasons. The “without substance or foundation” test should be applied cautiously to decide whether an appeal was so plainly hopeless that it could be dismissed on the papers without a hearing. The Court could not tell from the form whether the Appeal Board had applied that test.
The Court therefore quashed the Appeal Board’s decision and directed the Board of Inquiry to provide reasons. Kelly may then appeal. The judgment left the inquiry findings and the Commissioner’s disciplinary decision to be addressed through that process; it did not itself determine the underlying allegations.