The High Court has refused Garda John Kelly’s application for judicial review of his dismissal from An Garda Síochána, the Board of Inquiry’s recommendation and the Appeal Board’s refusal to consider his appeal.
Mr Justice Hedigan delivered judgment on 12 April 2013. He said the court was reviewing the legality of the decisions and the process, not deciding whether the disciplinary findings were correct on their merits.
The disciplinary case followed an after-hours inspection of Monica’s Bar in Drumshambo, Co. Leitrim, on 20 September 2009. Garda Kelly’s written accounts said he had entered the premises. A Board of Inquiry considered six charges and recommended dismissal on four charges of falsehood, including allegations concerning three written statements and entries in his Garda notebook. The Commissioner dismissed him on 12 August 2011.
Garda Kelly argued that the Board had not adequately explained its findings and that a statement by Mrs Mc Gourty to Sergeant Fahy had been disclosed late. He said the statement conflicted with her later accounts and that he had been unable to challenge it properly. The respondent disputed those claims, arguing that the statement had been flagged in advance and that the Board was not required to provide a discursive explanation of its decision.
The judge found that Mrs Mc Gourty’s accounts were consistent apart from uncertainty about whether Garda Kelly might have put a foot inside the hallway. Her statement also said he had not looked into or entered the pub. The court rejected the claim that her evidence was contradictory or amounted to perjury, and found Garda Kelly had not been taken by surprise because the statement had been referred to in material served before the inquiry.
The court also held that the charges and evidence had made the basis of the Board’s conclusions clear; detailed reasons were not required in this factual dispute. On the appeal, the judge found Garda Kelly had not been misled about the possibility of an oral hearing. The Appeal Board was entitled under Regulation 35(2)(b) to refuse to consider an appeal it found “without substance or foundation.” The judge said the appeal grounds either lacked support, had already been addressed or sought a reconsideration of evidence without explaining why it was warranted.
The court refused all relief sought. It did not rehear the disciplinary case or substitute its own findings on whether the alleged misconduct occurred.