The High Court has proposed quashing the notice that began proceedings to dispense with a probationary Garda’s services, after finding that he was not given the material the Garda Commissioner intended to rely on and that the process risked compromising his presumption of innocence in related criminal proceedings.
Mr Justice Max Barrett’s judgment concerns a notice issued to Thomas Murphy on 17 December 2019 under regulation 12 of the Garda Síochána (Admissions and Appointments) Regulations 2013. The notice proposed dispensing with his services and gave him 28 days to make submissions. The allegations related to events in the early hours of New Year’s Day 2019, when Murphy was 20. The judgment does not set out further details of those events, citing his privacy.
Murphy was facing a prosecution arising from the same events. His solicitors wrote to the Commissioner on 8 January 2020, seeking the material on which the proposal was based and time to make further submissions after receiving it. They also asked that no further steps be taken until the prosecution was dealt with. The court said the Commissioner did not respond before the 14 January deadline, and that the requested documents were not provided with the original notice.
The judge said the missing documents included material relevant to the Commissioner’s consideration of Murphy’s suitability, including reports that contained favourable assessments. Without that material, Murphy could not make informed submissions. The judge also criticised a process that, in practical terms, put Murphy at risk of dismissal if he did not respond to allegations while a criminal case was pending, potentially requiring him to set out his defence in writing.
Murphy sought judicial review. The court rejected the claim that the original notice itself determined the allegations as facts: it was a proposal, as regulation 12 requires. It also found that a later order staying the determination did not prevent the Commissioner from sending documents in August 2020. The Commissioner issued a fresh notice at the same time, but later withdrew it as an apparent second process.
The judgment records that Murphy was convicted in the District Court in September 2020 of a Road Traffic Act offence, fined €400 and disqualified from driving for three years. His conviction was under appeal at the time of judgment.
No final decision had been made on dispensing with Murphy’s services, so the court refused the requested order to quash such a determination. Instead, it proposed quashing the decision to issue the December 2019 notice in the circumstances in which it was issued. Because that relief had not been expressly sought or argued at the hearing, the court invited the parties to make further submissions at a brief hearing. The judge also indicated that Murphy appeared entitled to costs, subject to any contrary submissions. The judgment does not record a final order on the proposed relief or costs.