The High Court has refused a former Garda sergeant’s application to overturn a disciplinary finding that required him to resign, ruling that his judicial review application was not brought promptly. The court also rejected his claims about delay and interference with the disciplinary hearing.
The case concerned five alleged breaches of discipline relating to oppressive conduct towards a member of the public on 12 September 1995. A Garda Síochána Complaints Tribunal heard the matter on 8 June 1998, found the breaches established and decided that the applicant should be required to resign. Those were the Tribunal’s findings; the High Court was reviewing the process, not rehearing the underlying allegations.
The applicant argued that the Tribunal hearing had been unlawfully delayed while a separate internal Garda inquiry examined a later complaint. He alleged that the Complaints Board’s chief executive intervened to wait for that inquiry. The respondents denied this, saying the adjournments were either requested by the applicant’s solicitor or otherwise properly made, and that the Tribunal did not know the detail of the separate inquiry.
The High Court found that the applicant had not appealed the Tribunal’s decision within the 21-day period. His solicitors had written, 18 days after the decision, saying they intended to seek judicial review, but those proceedings were not then brought. The applicant later appealed out of time; the Appeals Board ruled that it had no jurisdiction to consider that appeal. The High Court noted that leave for judicial review was granted on 20 May 1999, more than 11 months after the Tribunal decision, and held that the delay was neither prompt nor excusable. On that basis alone, it said, relief should be refused.
The judge also considered the permitted grounds in case that conclusion was wrong. The court found that the alleged improper postponement was not substantiated and described the claimed interference as speculative. It accepted evidence from the Board’s chief executive and Tribunal representatives that the chief executive did not control adjournments and that the Tribunal lacked detailed knowledge of the separate inquiry. The applicant had sought adjournments and could have presented relevant evidence from that inquiry at the Tribunal hearing, but did not do so.
The court dismissed the claim and refused relief against the Tribunal. The matter was not proceeded with against the Complaints Board; the grounds concerning the Appeals Board had not been allowed at the leave stage.