The Court of Appeal dismissed most of an appeal by Garda Paul Baynham against the continuation of his suspension, but left open a central question about whether the Commissioner adequately explained the factors weighed in the suspension decisions. It listed the case for a further hearing on 8 October 2025 to decide how that issue should proceed.
Baynham was suspended on 7 November 2020 under Regulation 7 of the Garda Síochána (Discipline) Regulations 2007. The notice cited allegations that he had interfered in the processing of fixed charge notices between December 2017 and September 2019 and had received a “gift” as a reward. These remain allegations; the appeal court did not determine their truth.
The High Court had dismissed most of Baynham’s judicial review claims in December 2023. It declared that he was entitled to sufficient information about the factors considered in further suspending him, to enable him to make representations or challenge the suspension. Baynham appealed the refusal of other relief, while the respondents cross-appealed the declaration.
The Court of Appeal rejected Baynham’s arguments that he lacked adequate notice of the general reasons for suspension, that the High Court wrongly presumed decision-making material existed, that he had established unequal treatment compared with other gardaí, and that he could challenge a September 2022 refusal to provide material despite bringing proceedings after the applicable time limit. It also upheld the High Court costs order. The appeal court said the investigation involved 198 files submitted to the Director of Public Prosecutions, including 38 in which Baynham featured, and accepted evidence that the investigations were complex and time-consuming.
However, the court found substance in the separate argument that the Commissioner’s reasons did not explain how relevant factors were assessed or why they led to suspension. The Commissioner’s policy listed considerations including the strength and seriousness of allegations, risks, alternatives to suspension and likely duration. The High Court had not decided this aspect of the reasons challenge. The appeal court did not resolve it; it directed the parties to address whether it should be remitted to the High Court, decided on appeal or handled another way, and noted a possible pleading issue.
The court dismissed the cross-appeal against the High Court’s declaration, while observing that its wording might merit reflection. It also noted that, after the appeal hearing, Baynham had been charged with ten counts of perverting the course of justice, alleged to relate to 2017–2019. The parties agreed the appeal should still be decided on the arguments already made, despite the possibility it had become moot. The court’s judgment did not determine the charges. The appeal was listed for mention on 8 October 2025 on the outstanding reasons issue and appeal costs.