The High Court allowed Denis Kenny’s application for judicial review after finding that a two-year delay in processing a complaint against him was inordinate and, to that extent, unreasonable. The judgment’s concluding paragraph does not specify the precise order made, so the source does not establish which of the remedies sought was granted.
The complaint was made by bus driver Denise Bohan following an incident on 15 March 2000. The judgment says her bus pulled out from a stop in front of Kenny’s car near Clonsilla railway crossing. Kenny followed her to the terminus, where they discussed how each had driven. These are details of the complaint as recounted in the judgment, not findings on the alleged conduct.
The complaint was deemed admissible in April 2000. After an informal resolution was declined, an investigating officer prepared a report, which the Garda Síochána Complaints Board received in February 2001. The Board deferred consideration until after May 2001 while a separate High Court challenge concerning the appointment of an inspector as investigating officer was pending. It considered Kenny’s case again in April 2003, after the separate case had been decided, and referred it to the Tribunal.
The Tribunal later proposed a hearing. Kenny challenged the delay when he attended a hearing in November 2004, arguing that it breached fair procedures and his legitimate expectation that the complaint would be dealt with promptly. The Tribunal accepted that there had been delay but considered the reasons acceptable and was prepared to proceed. Kenny then sought judicial review.
The respondents argued that the delay was neither inordinate nor inexcusable, that Kenny had suffered no prejudice, and that the balance of justice favoured allowing the disciplinary process to continue. The court noted no specific prejudice to memory, witnesses or documents. It also considered the public and complainant’s interests, while noting that counsel could not say whether a separate dangerous-driving summons against Bohan had proceeded or what its outcome was.
The court treated the two-year period between the Board’s decisions in April 2001 and April 2003 as inordinate and unreasonable. It said the Board could have acted after a draft judgment in the separate case became available in July 2002, or asked Kenny whether he intended to rely on that case. The court also regarded the seven months taken to provide particulars and witness statements as dilatory in light of the earlier delay. It considered the later delay to the Tribunal hearing excusable, noting witness difficulties and scheduling issues, including about two months attributable to Kenny.
Relying on the principle in McNeil v Commissioner of An Garda Síochána, the court said an unrelated case did not excuse the obligation to progress the complaint as soon as practicable. It then allowed the application. The judgment does not state whether the court granted prohibition, a declaration, a stay, or another specific remedy.