The Court of Appeal has dismissed a challenge by a Garda probationer who had been suspended from duty since August 2020, despite finding procedural shortcomings in the handling of one suspension review.
J.M. was suspended after a 17-year-old female accused him of rape following an off-duty encounter. He denied non-consensual activity. The complaint was withdrawn in February 2021 and the Director of Public Prosecutions directed in April 2022 that there should be no prosecution.
GSOC later investigated potential disciplinary breaches arising from J.M.’s own account of the incident. It recommended proceedings concerning alleged discreditable conduct relating to sexual activity after he believed the teenager was too intoxicated, and to driving while intoxicated. Those disciplinary allegations were separate from the withdrawn rape complaint and remained for the Garda disciplinary process to determine.
J.M. challenged a July 2024 decision continuing his suspension. He argued that the lengthy suspension required fuller fair procedures, that the Commissioner had failed to engage with representations seeking alternatives to suspension, and that the reasons given were inadequate.
Mr Justice Binchy held that the suspension remained a holding measure pending disciplinary proceedings. It was on full basic pay and the disciplinary process had substantially progressed. The court therefore rejected J.M.’s argument that the full range of fair procedures applied or that delay had invalidated the suspension.
However, the court found that the Commissioner should have engaged with J.M.’s July 2024 request to consider alternatives to suspension and should have addressed his request for information about materials considered. It also found the stated reasons deficient insofar as they failed to show whether the Commissioner’s own long-term suspension policy had been applied.
Those findings did not result in relief. The July 2024 three-month suspension decision had long expired, later suspension decisions were not challenged, and the disciplinary process had been close to completion when proceedings began.
The appeal was therefore dismissed and the High Court order affirmed. Costs were left for later submissions.