The High Court has dismissed Garda Thomas Noonan’s challenge to a disciplinary inquiry that found him guilty of 39 alleged breaches and recommended that he resign or face dismissal.
Mr Justice McKechnie ruled on 17 July 2007 that the inquiry had properly considered his request for another adjournment and acted lawfully in proceeding while he was absent. The case was decided on affidavit evidence; there was no oral evidence before the High Court.
Noonan sought orders quashing the inquiry’s decision and recommendation of 16 July 2004 and the Commissioner’s decision of 3 August 2004 to accept them. He had been charged with 51 alleged breaches in one disciplinary form and four in another. The inquiry found him guilty of charges 1–6, 13–21 and 25–51 in the first form, and charge 1 in the second. It found him not guilty of the remaining allegations. The inquiry recommended disciplinary action in relation to the first form and imposed a €1,500 fine on the single charge in the second.
The Commissioner then required Noonan to resign by 24 August 2004 or face dismissal from midnight that day. Noonan sought an appeal-board review, but that review was stayed after he obtained leave to bring the judicial review proceedings.
The inquiry had been adjourned several times after Noonan sought postponements, including on medical grounds. On 6 July 2004, it refused a further request and proceeded in his absence. Noonan argued that the inquiry had failed to properly consider his request and that supporting documents had not been shared with all its members.
The High Court accepted evidence from the inquiry’s presiding officer that Noonan’s letters and medical material had been circulated and discussed before the decision to proceed. The judge said the hearing transcript did not record this at the time, but found that omission was not fatal because the evidence showed the inquiry had considered the material and made a decision.
The judge also found that the inquiry had sufficient material to proceed, including evidence from earlier hearings that cast doubt on whether Noonan was medically unfit to attend. He noted evidence that Noonan had been told on 2 and 5 July that the inquiry would go ahead, and that he would not attend or be represented.
The court rejected Noonan’s other procedural arguments, including that he should have been notified of each day’s continuation and separately notified when the inquiry moved to the second disciplinary form. It dismissed the judicial review. The judgment did not determine the stayed appeal-board review or make a new disciplinary order.