The High Court refused Kevin Rogers’s application for an interlocutory injunction to stop An Post proceeding with a disciplinary process until the conclusion of his criminal case. Mr Justice Keane said the injunction would effectively decide the main action in Mr Rogers’s favour before a full trial, and he was not satisfied this was an exceptional case warranting that result.
The application concerned An Post’s investigation into suspected serious misconduct at Roscommon Post Office on or about 5 March 2012. The allegation was that Mr Rogers was responsible for the mistreatment of registered post containing a urine sample sent for analysis in connection with a suspected drink-driving offence. Mr Rogers was charged in October 2012 with perverting the course of justice. His first trial, before a judge and jury at Roscommon Circuit Criminal Court in November and December 2013, ended without a verdict when the jury could not agree. A retrial was scheduled for 9 or 10 December 2014.
Mr Rogers had been suspended on full pay since 28 March 2012. An Post initially deferred its disciplinary process while the criminal charge was pending, but told him after the hung jury that it intended to resume it. The company’s September 2012 letter described the suspected misconduct and said dismissal was among the possible outcomes. It offered him the opportunity to respond and to attend an oral hearing. An Post later agreed to allow him legal representation at the proposed hearing, although its disciplinary procedures did not provide for that.
Mr Rogers argued that continuing the process could prejudice his criminal trial and his privilege against self-incrimination. He also disputed whether the allegation had been specified sufficiently, challenged the proposed hearing’s fairness, and raised concerns about possible Garda communications recording. An Post said the process remained at a preliminary enquiry stage, that it would not require him to provide information he believed might incriminate him, and that he could rely on his cautioned Garda statement as his response. The company had provided him with 48 pages of investigation material and planned to make relevant CCTV footage available.
The judge considered the arguments but did not decide the factual or legal merits of Mr Rogers’s underlying claim. He said the proposed injunction would likely settle the effective contest between the parties summarily and prevent An Post from having its rights determined at a full trial. He was unable to conclude that refusing the injunction would cause an overwhelming injustice. The application was refused.