The High Court quashed the appointment of solicitor Karl Carney as presiding officer of a Garda disciplinary inquiry, ruling that the Commissioner had no power to replace the chair of an already established board.
Mr Justice Coffey delivered the judgment on 4 May 2018 in three related judicial review cases brought by serving Garda members Damien Broughall, Avril Doyle and Ronan Waldron. They face allegations of serious disciplinary breaches concerning the handling and control of exhibits during a 2007 murder investigation. The judgment does not determine those allegations.
The Commissioner established a Board of Inquiry on 10 October 2014 and selected solicitor Tony Williams as presiding officer. The board later heard preliminary issues, including an unsuccessful objection based on alleged prejudicial delay and an allegation that the Commissioner had not complied with Regulation 23. In April 2017, the board decided that the allegations against the applicants would be heard together at a later, unspecified date.
After Williams ceased practising as a solicitor, the Commissioner purported to appoint Carney in his place under Regulation 25(4). The applicants argued that the regulations did not authorise the substitution. The Commissioner submitted that the power could be derived from the power to establish a board, or implied, and that the appointment before the substantive hearing did not breach fair procedures.
The court found that the regulations treat a board as a single body carrying out both investigative and decision-making functions. They expressly provide for a limited objection to one Garda member of a board, but contain no general power to change its membership after establishment. Allowing substitution could create uncertainty about who was responsible for earlier rulings and mandatory duties, and could disrupt the scheme for appeals.
The judgment distinguishes replacing one member of an existing board from establishing a new board. If an inquiry board cannot complete its work, the Commissioner may, by logical implication, establish a new board with different members to consider the matter afresh. The court rejected the asserted power to substitute a presiding officer on the existing board as inconsistent with the regulations. It granted the relief sought in each case and made orders of certiorari quashing Carney’s purported appointment on 18 January 2017. It did not decide the underlying disciplinary allegations or impose any disciplinary sanction.