The High Court awarded a retired detective €85,000 after finding that several actions by Garda colleagues and senior management amounted to workplace bullying and harassment, and that a leaflet falsely linking him to a political protest was libellous.
Mr Justice Cross delivered judgment on 4 December 2012 in William Browne’s claim against the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform and the Commissioner of An Garda Síochána. The case was a damages action alleging negligence, breach of contract and duty, conspiracy, and failures to address complaints. It was not a judicial review of the Garda decisions.
The court found that the detective’s permission to drive a Garda vehicle was unfairly withheld from about a year after its theft in 2000 until 2009. It also found that the continued refusal to return his firearm after medical experts considered him fit to carry it was used to punish or control him. The court accepted that the original firearm removal, while he was suffering anxiety, was reasonable.
A separate finding concerned a leaflet advertising a protest about the former Rowntree factory site in Kilmainham. A copy of Browne’s signature and identifying details, taken from an official letter, had been attached to it, suggesting he supported the protest in his Garda capacity. The court found the publication to an inspector was libel and part of a bullying campaign. It considered the inspector’s later disclosure to another Garda protected by qualified privilege, and said the libel’s publication was limited and caused no serious reputational damage.
The court also found that a criminal fraud investigation over a disputed overtime claim had no proper basis and was probably prompted by animus. It accepted that evidence and exhibits were stolen from Browne’s locker and found this was intended to undermine him, though it could not identify who was responsible and did not find that senior officers necessarily orchestrated it.
Other complaints were not upheld as bullying. These included the initial dispute over subsistence expenses, the response to his missed court hearing, disciplinary proceedings following a station altercation, criticism of his dress, a witness order, and the placement of posters the court regarded as a misguided attempt at humour. The court also said the failure to properly investigate his complaints was regrettable but did not itself amount to bullying.
The judge found that the conduct he upheld had foreseeably caused injury. He accepted evidence of moderate, ongoing psychiatric injury, including reactive depression, and awarded €55,000 in personal injury damages. He awarded €25,000 for defamation and €5,000 in special damages, including any subsistence sums due. The total award was €85,000. The court made no separate declaratory order concerning the expenses claim and made no further findings on conspiracy.