The High Court has refused a Garda sergeant’s application to overturn the Commissioner’s decision to pursue her dismissal after her conviction for assaulting a member of the public.
The case concerned the Commissioner’s proposed use of Regulation 39 of the Garda Síochána (Discipline) Regulations 2007. That procedure allows the Commissioner to dismiss a member below inspector rank without a disciplinary inquiry in specified circumstances, but requires the Minister’s consent and an opportunity for the member to make submissions.
The sergeant was acquitted in 2011 of assault causing harm but convicted by a jury of assault under section 2 of the Non-Fatal Offences Against the Person Act 1997. She received a four-month prison sentence, suspended for six months, and entered a €200 bond. The Court of Criminal Appeal upheld her conviction.
In December 2012, the Commissioner notified her that he proposed to dismiss her, subject to ministerial consent, because he considered her unfit for retention. She made submissions against dismissal in February 2013. After considering them, the Commissioner maintained his decision and wrote in March 2013 that he would seek the Minister’s consent.
The sergeant argued that a conviction alone could not justify summary dismissal, that the Commissioner should have held an inquiry and considered the circumstances and a lesser sanction, and that he had not given adequate reasons. She also alleged that other Garda members convicted of assault had not been dismissed.
The court found that the Commissioner had authority under Regulation 39 and that the sergeant could not reopen the conviction, which had been upheld on appeal. It was not satisfied that she had established a factual basis for discriminatory or disproportionate treatment. The judgment noted three other members’ cases: two had resigned after convictions, while a third member’s conviction was under appeal and disciplinary action had not yet been decided.
The court also found that the sergeant had been invited to make submissions and that the Commissioner had considered them. It held that the reasons were clear from the notices and correspondence: the conviction constituted a breach of discipline which the Commissioner considered serious enough to merit dismissal.
The court refused the relief sought. Its decision addressed the lawfulness of the Commissioner’s proposed course; the judgment records that dismissal was subject to the Minister’s consent and does not state that the Minister had given consent or that the sergeant was ultimately dismissed.