The High Court has refused Catherine McGowan’s challenge to a Garda disciplinary inquiry, finding that the allegations against her went beyond the issues in the criminal trial in which she was acquitted.
Mr Justice White delivered the judgment on 16 November 2017. McGowan sought judicial review of the Commissioner’s 8 June 2015 decision to establish a three-member Board of Inquiry under the Garda Síochána (Discipline) Regulations 2007. She asked the court to quash that decision, stop the inquiry and declare that it was unlawful.
McGowan had been acquitted on all charges at Dublin Circuit Criminal Court on 12 March 2015, after a trial concerning alleged false documents. The disciplinary process concerned alleged failures in her investigation of a complaint made by a person identified in the judgment as M.K., as well as alleged misleading statements and false or misleading records. These were allegations to be considered by the Board, not findings made in the judicial review judgment.
McGowan argued that the disciplinary inquiry covered the same matters as the criminal trial and would be unfair and oppressive under regulation 8(2). That provision restricts disciplinary proceedings after an acquittal where they would examine the same issues and, considering all the circumstances, it would be unfair and oppressive to proceed. She also argued that the Commissioner should have given reasons for allowing the inquiry to go ahead.
The Commissioner’s side submitted by affidavit that Internal Affairs had reviewed the disciplinary file after the criminal proceedings and identified outstanding matters that had not been considered at trial. The affidavit said the issues in the trial differed from those proposed for the inquiry.
The judge concluded that the disciplinary allegations included matters that could not have been criminal charges and concerned alleged neglect of duty and other conduct in handling the complaint. He said the disciplinary case went beyond the criminal trial’s narrower focus. In those circumstances, the court found regulation 8(2) did not apply and held there was no obligation to explain why it had not been applied.
The court refused the reliefs sought. It did not determine whether McGowan committed any disciplinary breach; the Board of Inquiry had been established to consider that question.