The Court of Appeal has dismissed Marie O’Reilly’s appeal against the High Court’s dismissal of her civil claim against the Garda Commissioner, and against the costs order made in the Commissioner’s favour.
In a judgment delivered on 16 February 2018, Ms Justice Irvine said the appeal was limited: O’Reilly did not challenge the High Court’s substantive conclusions on the claims she had brought. The Court of Appeal therefore did not reconsider those claims. It examined five grounds alleging objective bias, demonstrable bias, inadequate assessment of her evidence, denial of protections under the Protected Disclosures Act 2014, and a miscarriage of justice. It rejected each ground.
The High Court had dismissed the case at the close of O’Reilly’s evidence, finding that she had not established an entitlement to the relief sought. The Court of Appeal said a defendant may ask for a decision on the plaintiff’s evidence alone if it considers that evidence insufficient, even if it previously supplied a list of potential witnesses. The Commissioner’s decision not to call evidence was not, by itself, irregular or unfair.
O’Reilly argued that the High Court judge was connected to a mental health tribunal or commission that included a psychiatrist who had prepared a report concerning her complaint. The Court of Appeal said there was no affidavit or other evidence establishing the alleged connection. It added that even if shared tribunal membership had been proved, the doctor’s report and involvement were peripheral to the High Court case and would not establish objective bias.
The court also rejected her reliance on the High Court judge’s rulings about CCTV, a requested injunction affecting disciplinary proceedings, and alleged misleading submissions by the Commissioner’s counsel as proof of bias. It said the appeal record did not substantiate the claims and that adverse rulings alone did not establish bias.
O’Reilly had joined An Garda Síochána in 1994. She made a complaint in 2009 alleging bullying, harassment and sexual harassment by 15 members. That complaint was not upheld in 2011, and she did not appeal or seek judicial review of that decision. The judgment records that she was removed from the Garda payroll from 1 January 2010 and had attended work for two days since March 2008. These details formed part of the case background; the Court of Appeal said it was not reopening the underlying claims.
Separately, a disciplinary board recommended O’Reilly’s dismissal over alleged absence from duty without good and sufficient cause. She appealed that decision under the Garda Síochána (Discipline) Regulations 2007, and the judgment said the appeal remained live and her dismissal was suspended pending it. The Court of Appeal dismissed the civil appeal; it did not decide that disciplinary appeal or the allegations before it.